The Gospel of St. Luke
GA 114
15 September 1909, Basel
Lecture One
[ 1 ] During our last meeting here some time ago we spoke of the deeper currents of Christianity with particular reference to the Gospel of St. John and of the great images and ideas accessible to man when he reflects deeply upon this unique text. More than once it has been emphasized that the very depths of Christianity are illuminated by that Gospel and some of those who have heard lecture-courses on the same subject might feel inclined to ask: If the viewpoint reached through studying the Gospel of St. John may truly be called the most profound, can it be widened or enriched in any way by study of the other three Gospels of St. Luke, St. Matthew and St. Mark? Again, those who tend to be mentally lazy might ask: If the deepest depths of Christianity are to be found in the Gospel of St. John, is it still necessary to study Christianity as presented in the other Gospels, especially in the apparently less profound Gospel of St. Luke?
[ 2 ] Anyone who might put this question believing such an attitude to be worthy of consideration would be labouring under a complete misapprehension. The scope of Christianity itself is infinite and light can be shed upon it from the most diverse standpoints. Furthermore, as the present course of lectures will show, although the Gospel of St. John is a document of untold profundity, there are facts which can be learnt from the Gospel of St. Luke and not from that of St. John. The ideas which in the lectures on the Gospel of St. John we came to recognize as among the most profound in Christianity, do not by any means comprise all its depths. It is possible to penetrate these depths from another starting-point altogether, basing our studies on the Gospel of St. Luke viewed in the light of Anthroposophy.
[ 3 ] Let us once again recall facts in support of the statement that there is something to be gained from the Gospel of St. Luke even if the depths of the Gospel of St. John have been exhaustively studied. A fact revealed to the student of Anthroposophy by every line of the Gospel of St. John is that records such as the Gospels were composed by individuals who, as initiates and clairvoyants, possessed deeper insight than other men into the nature of existence. In everyday parlance the terms ‘initiate’ and ‘clairvoyant’ may be synonymous. But if our studies of Anthroposophy are to lead us into the deeper strata of spiritual life, we must distinguish between one who is an ‘initiate’ and one who is a ‘clairvoyant’, for they represent two distinct categories of human beings who have found their way into the spheres of super-sensible existence. There is a difference between an initiate and a clairvoyant, although an initiate may at the same time be a clairvoyant, and a clairvoyant an initiate of a certain grade. To distinguish with exactitude between these two categories of human beings you must recall the facts described in my book Knowledge of the Higher Worlds and its Attainment, remembering that strictly speaking there are three stages on the path leading beyond ordinary perception of the world.
[ 4 ] The first kind of knowledge accessible to man can be described by saying: he beholds the world through his senses and assimilates what he perceives by means of his intellect and the other faculties of his soul. Beyond this, there are three further stages of knowledge, of cognition: the first is the stage of Imagination, Imaginative Cognition, the second is the stage of Inspiration, and the third is the stage of Intuition—but the term ‘Intuition’ must be understood in its true sense.
[ 5 ] The faculty of Imaginative Cognition is possessed by one before whose eye of spirit all that lies behind the world of the senses is unfolded in mighty, cosmic pictures—but these pictures do not in the least resemble anything we call by this name in everyday life. Apart from the difference that the pictures revealed by Imaginative Cognition are independent of the laws of three-dimensional space, other characteristics make it impossible for them to be compared with anything in the world of the senses.
[ 6 ] An idea of the world of Imagination may be gained in the following way. Suppose someone were able to extract from a plant in front of him everything perceptible to the sense of sight as ‘colour’, so that this hovered freely in the air. If he were to do nothing more than draw out the colour from the plant, a lifeless colour-form would hover before him. But to the clairvoyant such a colour-form is anything but a lifeless picture, for when he extracts the colour from the objects, then, through the preparation he has undergone and the exercises he has practised, this colour-picture begins to be animated by spirit just as in the physical world it was filled by the living substance of the plant. He then has before him, not a lifeless colour-form but freely moving coloured light, glistening, sparkling, full of inner life; each colour is the expression of the particular nature of a spiritual being imperceptible in the world of the physical senses. That is to say, the colour in the physical plant becomes for the clairvoyant the expression of spiritual beings. [ 7 ] Now imagine a world filled with such colour-forms, reflected in manifold ways and in perpetual metamorphosis; your vision must not be confined to the colours, as it might be when confronting a painting of glimmering colour-reflections, but you must imagine it all as the expression of beings of soul-and-spirit, so that you can say to yourselves: ‘When a green colour-picture flashes up it expresses to me the fact that an intellectual being is behind it; or when a reddish colour-picture flashes up it is to me the expression of a being with a fiery, violent nature.’ Now imagine this whole sea of interweaving colours I might equally well say a sea of interplaying sensations of tone, taste, or smell, for all these are the expressions of beings of soul-and-spirit behind them—and you have what is called the ‘Imaginative’ world, the world of Imagination. It is nothing to which the word ‘imagination’ (fancy) in its ordinary sense could be applied; it is a real world, requiring a mode of comprehension different from that derived from the senses.
[ 8 ] Within this world of Imagination you encounter everything that is behind the sense-world and is imperceptible to the physical senses—for instance, the etheric and astral bodies. A man whose knowledge of the world is derived from this clairvoyant, Imaginative perception, becomes acquainted with the outward aspect of higher beings, just as you become acquainted with the outward, physical aspect of a man in the physical world who, let us say, passes in front of you in the street. You know more about him when there is an opportunity of talking with him. His words then give you an impression differing from the one he makes upon you when you look at him in the street. In the case of many a man whom you pass by (to mention this one example only) you cannot observe whether his soul is moved by inner joy or grief, sorrow or delight. But you can discover this if you converse with him. In the one case his outward aspect is conveyed to you through everything you can perceive without his assistance; in the other case he expresses his very self to you. The same applies to the beings of the super-sensible world. [ 9 ] A clairvoyant who comes to recognize these beings through Imaginative Cognition knows only their outward aspect. But he hears them give expression to their very selves when he rises from Imaginative Knowledge to Knowledge through Inspiration. He then has actual intercourse with these beings. They communicate to him from their inmost selves what and who they are. Inspiration is therefore a higher stage of knowledge than Imagination, and more is learnt about the beings of the world of soul-and-spirit at the stage of Inspiration than can be learnt through Imagination.
[ 10 ] A still higher stage of knowledge is that of Intuition—but the word must be taken in its spiritual-scientific sense, not in that of day-to-day parlance, when anything that occurs to one, however hazy and nebulous, may be called ‘intuition’. In our sense, Intuition is a form of knowledge thanks to which we not only listen spiritually to what the beings communicate to us, but we become one with the very beings themselves. This is a very lofty stage of spiritual knowledge for it requires, at the outset, that there shall be in the human being that quality of universal love which causes him to make no distinction between himself and the other beings in his spiritual environment, but to pour forth his very self into the environment; thus he no longer remains outside but lives within the beings with whom he has spiritual communion. Because this can take place only in a spiritual world, the expression ‘Intuition’, i.e. ‘to dwell in the God’ is entirely appropriate. Thus there are three stages of knowledge of the super-sensible worlds: Imagination, Inspiration and Intuition.
[ 11 ] It is possible, of course, to attain all these three stages of super-sensible knowledge, but it may also be that in some one incarnation the stage of Imagination only is reached. Then the spheres of the spiritual world attainable through Inspiration and Intuition remain hidden from the clairvoyant concerned. In our present age it is not usual for a person to be led to the higher stages of spiritual experience before having passed through the stage of Imagination; it is hardly possible for anyone to omit the stage of Imagination and be led at once to the stages of Inspiration and Intuition. But what would not be appropriate to-day, could happen and actually did happen in certain other periods of the evolution of man.
[ 12 ] There were times when Imagination on the one hand and Inspiration and Intuition on the other were apportioned to different individuals. In certain Mystery-centres there were men whose eyes of spirit were open in such a way that they were clairvoyant in the sphere of Imagination and that world of symbolical pictures was accessible to them. Because with this grade of clairvoyance, such men said: ‘For this incarnation I renounce the attainment of the higher stages of Inspiration and Intuition’, they made themselves capable of seeing clearly and with exactitude in the world of Imagination. They underwent much training in order to develop vision of that world. [ 13 ] But one thing was essential for them. Anyone who wants to confine his vision to the world of Imagination and gives up any attempt to advance to Inspiration and Intuition, lives in a world of uncertainty. This world of flowing Imaginations is, so to say, boundless, and if left to its own resources the soul floats hither and thither without being really aware of its direction or goal. In those times, therefore, and among peoples where certain human beings renounced the higher stages of knowledge, it was necessary for those whose clairvoyance had reached the stage of Imagination to attach themselves with utter devotion to leaders whose capacities of spiritual perception were open to Inspiration and Intuition. For Inspiration and Intuition alone can give such certainty in regard to the spiritual world that a man knows with full assurance: Thither leads the path—towards a definite goal! Without Inspiration it is not possible to say: There is the path; I must follow it in order to reach a goal! Whoever, therefore, cannot say this must entrust himself to the wise guidance of someone who says it to him. Hence in so many quarters it is constantly emphasized, and rightly so, that whoever rises, to begin with, to the stage of Imagination, must attach himself inwardly to a Guru—a leader who gives both direction and aim to his experiences. [ 14 ] It was also advisable in certain epochs—but this is no longer the case to-day—to allow other individuals to omit the stage of Imagination and to lead them at once to Inspiration or, if possible, to Intuition. Such men renounced the possibility of perceiving the Imaginative pictures of the spiritual world around them; they lent themselves only to such impressions from the spiritual world as issue from the inner life of the beings there. They listened with their ears of spirit to the utterances of the beings of the spiritual world. Suppose there is a screen between you and another man whom you do not see but only hear him speaking behind the screen. It is certainly possible to renounce pictorial vision of the spiritual world in order to be led more quickly to the stage of hearing the utterances of the spiritual beings. No matter whether a person sees the pictures of the world of Imagination or not—if he is able to apprehend with spiritual ears what the beings in the spiritual world communicate regarding themselves, we say of him that he is endowed with the power to hear the ‘inner word’—in contrast to the outer word used in the physical world between man and man.
We can thus conceive that there are people who, without beholding the world of Imaginations, are endowed with the power to apprehend the inner word and can hear and communicate the utterances of spiritual beings. [ 15 ] There were periods in the evolution of humanity when, within the Mysteries, these two forms of super-sensible cognition worked in co-operation. Each individual who had renounced the faculty of perception possessed by another, could develop greater clarity and definition in his own faculty and at certain periods this resulted in a truly wonderful co-operation within the Mysteries. There were clairvoyants who had specially trained themselves to see the world of Imaginative pictures, and there were others who, having passed over the world of Imagination, had trained themselves to receive the inner word into their souls through Inspiration. And so the one could communicate to the other the experiences made possible by his particular training. This was possible in times when some degree of confidence reigned between one man and another; to-day it is out of the question, simply because of the character of our age. Nowadays one man has not such strong belief in another that he would listen to his descriptions of the pictures of the world of Imagination and then, honestly believing those descriptions to be accurate, supplement them with what he himself knows through Inspiration. Nowadays, everyone wants to see it all himself—and that is natural in our age. Very few people would be satisfied with a one-sided development of Imagination such as was taken for granted in certain epochs. In our present time, therefore, it is necessary for a man to be led through the three stages of higher knowledge without omitting any one of them.
[ 16 ] At each stage of super-sensible knowledge we encounter the great mysteries connected with the Christ Event, about which all three forms of cognition—Imaginative, Inspirational, Intuitive—have infinitely much to say.
[ 17 ] If with this in mind we turn our attention to the four Gospels, we may say that the Gospel of St. John is written from the vantage-point of one who in the fullest sense was an Initiate, cognisant at the stage of Intuition of the mysteries of the super-sensible world, and who therefore describes the Christ Event as revealed by the vision of Intuition. But if close attention is paid to the distinctive characteristics of St. John's Gospel it will have to be admitted that the features standing out most clearly are presented from the standpoint of Inspiration and Intuition, while everything originating from the pictures of Imagination is shadowy and lacks definition. Thus if we disregard what was still revealed to him through Imagination, we may call the writer of St. John's Gospel the messenger of everything relating to the Christ Event that is vouchsafed to one endowed with the power of apprehending the inner word at the stage of Intuition. Hence he describes the mysteries of Christ's Kingdom as receiving their character through the inner Word, or Logos. Knowledge through Inspiration and Intuition is the source of the Gospel of St. John.
[ 18 ] It is different in the case of the other three Gospels, and not one of their writers expressed his message as clearly as did the writer of the Gospel of St. Luke. [ 19 ] In a short but remarkable preface it is said, in effect, that many others had previously attempted to collect and set forth the stories in circulation concerning the events in Palestine; but that for the sake of accuracy and order the writer of this Gospel is now undertaking to present the things which ... and now come significant words ... could be understood by those who from the beginning were ‘eye-witnesses and servants (ministers) of the Word’—that is the usual rendering. The aim of the writer of this Gospel is therefore to communicate what eye-witnesses—it would be better to say ‘seers’ (Selbstseher)—and servants of the Word had to say. In the sense of St. Luke's Gospel, ‘seers’ are men who through Imaginative Cognition can penetrate into the world of pictures and there behold the Christ Event; people specially trained to perceive these Imaginations are seers with accurate and clear vision at the same time as being ‘servants of the Word’—a significant phrase—and the writer of St. Luke's Gospel uses their communications as a foundation. He does not say ‘possessors’ of the Word, because such persons would have reached the stage of Inspiration in the fullest sense; he says ‘servants’ of the Word—people who could count less upon Inspirations than upon Imaginations in their own knowledge but for whom communications from the world of Inspiration were nevertheless available. The results of Inspirational Cognition were communicated to them and they could proclaim what their inspired teachers had made known to them. They were ‘servants’, not ‘possessors’ of the Word.
[ 20 ] Thus the Gospel of St. Luke is founded upon the communications of seers, themselves knowers of the world of Imagination; they are those who, having learnt to express their visions of that world through means made possible by their inspired teachers, had themselves become ‘servants of the Word’.
[ 21 ] Here again is an example of the exactitude of the Gospel records and of the need to understand the words in the strictly literal sense. In texts based upon spiritual knowledge, everything is exact to a degree often undreamed of by modern man.
[ 22 ] But we must now again remember—as always when such matters are considered from the anthroposophical standpoint—that, for spiritual science, the Gospels themselves are not original sources of knowledge in the actual sense. One who stands strictly on the ground of spiritual science will not necessarily take a statement to be the truth simply because it stands in the Gospels. The spiritual scientist does not draw his knowledge from written documents but from the yields of spiritual investigation. Communications made by beings of the spiritual world to the initiate and the clairvoyant in the present age—these are the sources of knowledge for spiritual science. And in a certain respect these sources are the same in our age as in the times just described to you. Hence in our age too, those who have insight into the world of Imagination may be called clairvoyants, but only those who can rise to the stages of Inspiration and Intuition can be called ‘Initiates’. In our present age the expressions ‘clairvoyant’ and ‘initiate’ are not necessarily synonymous.
[ 23 ] The content of the Gospel of St. John could be based only upon knowledge possessed by an Initiate capable of rising to the stages of Inspiration and Intuition. The contents of the other three Gospels could be based upon the communications of persons endowed with Imaginative clairvoyance but not yet able themselves to rise to the stages of Inspiration and Intuition. If therefore we adhere strictly to this distinction, St. John's Gospel is based upon Initiation, and the other three, especially that of St. Luke—according to what the writer himself says—upon Clairvoyance. Because this is the case, and because everything that is revealed to the vision of a highly trained clairvoyant is introduced, this Gospel gives us well-defined pictures of what is contained in the Gospel of St. John in faint impressions only. In order to make the difference even more obvious, let me say the following.
[ 24 ] Although it would hardly ever be the case to-day, let us suppose a man were initiated in such a way that the worlds of Inspiration and of Intuition were open to him but that he was not clairvoyant in the world of Imagination. Suppose such a man met another, perhaps not initiated but to whom the whole world of Imaginations was open. This man would be able to communicate a great deal to the first who might possibly only be able to explain it through Inspiration but could not himself see it, having no faculty of clairvoyance. There are many to-day who are clairvoyant without being initiates; the reverse is hardly ever the case. Nevertheless it might conceivably happen that someone who had been initiated, could not, although possessing the gift of clairvoyance, for some reason or other perceive the Imaginations in a particular instance. A clairvoyant would then be able to tell such a man a great deal as yet unknown to him.
[ 25 ] It must be strongly emphasized that Anthroposophy relies upon no other source than that of the Initiates, and that the texts of the Gospels are not the actual sources of its knowledge. The fount of anthroposophical knowledge is investigated to-day independently of any historical records. But then we turn to the records and compare the findings of spiritual-scientific research with them. What Anthroposophy can at all times discover about the Christ Event without the help of any documentary record is found again in the Gospel of St. John, presented in a most sublime way. Hence its supreme value, for it shows us that at the time when it was composed a man was living who wrote as one initiated into the spiritual world can write to-day. The same voice, as it were, that can be heard to-day, sounds across to us from the depths of the centuries.
[ 26 ] The same can be said of the other Gospels, including that of St. Luke. It is not the pictures delineated by the writer of the Gospel of St. Luke that are for us the source of knowledge of the higher worlds; the source for us lies in the results of ascent into the super-sensible world. When we speak of the Christ Event, a source for us is also that great tableau of pictures and Imaginations appearing when we direct our gaze to the beginning of our era. We compare what thus reveals itself with the pictures and Imaginations described in the Gospel of St. Luke; and this course of lectures will show how the Imaginative pictures accessible to man to-day compare with the descriptions given in that Gospel.
[ 27 ] The truth is that there is only one source for spiritual investigation when directed to the events of the past. This source does not lie in external records; no stones dug out of the earth, no documents preserved in archives, no treatises written by historians either with or without insight—none of these things is the source of spiritual science. What we are able to read in the imperishable Akashic Chronicle—that is the source of spiritual science. The possibility exists of knowing what has happened in the past without reference to external records. [ 28 ] Modern man has thus two ways of acquiring information about the past. He can take the documents and the historical records when he wants to learn something about outer events, or the religious scripts when he wants to learn something about the conditions of spiritual life. Or else he can ask: What have those men to say before whose spiritual vision lies that imperishable Chronicle known as the ‘Akashic Chronicle’—that mighty tableau in which there is registered whatever has at any time come to pass in the evolution of the world, of the earth and of humanity?
[ 29 ] Whoever raises his consciousness into the spiritual world learns gradually to read this chronicle. It is no ordinary script. Think of the course of events, just as they happened, presented to your spiritual vision; think, let us say, of the Emperor Augustus and all his deeds standing before you in a cloud-like picture. The picture stands there before the spiritual-scientific investigator and he can at any time evoke the experience anew. He requires no external evidence. He need only direct his gaze to a definite point in cosmic or human happenings and the events will present themselves to him in a spiritual picture. In this way the spiritual gaze can survey the ages of the past, and what is there perceived is recorded as the findings of spiritual investigation.
[ 30 ] What happened at the beginning of our era can be perceived by spiritual vision and compared, for example, with what is related in the Gospel of St. Luke. Then the spiritual investigator recognizes that at that time too there were seers able to behold the past; and moreover the accounts they give of happenings in their own times can be compared with what is revealed to-day by spiritual investigation of the Akashic Chronicle.
[ 31 ] Again and again it must be realized that we do not have recourse to outer records but to the actual findings of spiritual investigation and that we then try to rediscover these results in the outer records. The value of the records themselves is thereby enhanced and we can come to a decision about the truth of their contents on the strength of our own investigations. They lie before us as, even more faithful expression of the truth because we ourselves are able to recognize the truth. But a statement such as this must not be made without at the same time affirming that this ‘reading in the Akashic Chronicle’ is by no means as easy as observation of events in the physical world! With the help of an example I should like to give you an idea of certain difficulties that may arise.
[ 32 ] We know from elementary Anthroposophy that man consists of physical body, etheric body, astral body and Ego. The moment we are no longer observing man on the physical plane but rise into the spiritual world, the difficulties begin. When we have a human being physically before us, we see a unity formed by physical body, etheric body, astral body and Ego. Whoever observes a human being during waking life has all this before him as unity, but if it is necessary for some reason to rise into the higher worlds in order to observe a human being, the difficulties at once begin. Suppose, for example, we wish to observe a human being in his totality while he is asleep during the night, and rise into the world of Imagination in order, let us say, to perceive his astral body—which is now outside the physical body. The human being is now divided into two. [ 33 ] What I am describing will seldom occur in this particular form, for observation of the human being is comparatively easy, but it will help to convey an idea of the difficulties in question.
Suppose someone goes into a room where a number of people are asleep. He sees their physical bodies lying there and, if he is clairvoyant, their etheric bodies too; at a higher stage of clairvoyance he sees their astral bodies. But in the astral world everything interpenetrates—including, of course, the astral bodies of human beings. Although it would not often happen to a trained clairvoyant, when looking at a number of sleeping people he might mistake which astral body belonged to some particular physical body below. As I said, it is an unlikely occurrence because this is one of the first stages of actual vision and because anyone who attains it is well trained in how to distinguish in such a case. But the difficulties become very considerable when spiritual beings—not human beings—are observed in the spiritual world. As a matter of fact the difficulties are already great if a human being is to be observed, not as he is at present, but in his totality, as he passes through incarnations. [ 34 ] Thus if you observe a human being now living and ask yourself: Where was his Ego in his previous incarnation? you have to go through the Devachanic world to reach his former incarnation. You must be able to establish which Ego has always belonged to the preceding incarnations of the person in question. You must hold together, in an intricate way, the continuous Ego and the various stages down on the Earth. Mistakes are very possible here and error can very easily occur when looking for an Ego in its earlier bodies. In the higher worlds, therefore, it is not easy to maintain the connection between everything belonging to a human personality and his former incarnations as inscribed in the Akashic Chronicle.
[ 35 ] Suppose someone has before him a man—let us call him John Smith—and as a clairvoyant or initiate he asks: ‘Who were the physical ancestors of this man?’—Let us assume that all external records have been lost and there is only the Akashic Chronicle upon which to rely. It would be a matter of having to discover from the Akashic Chronicle the physical ancestors of the man—the father, mother, grandfather, and so on, in order to see how the physical body evolved in the line of physical descent. But then there might be the further question: ‘What were the earlier incarnations of this man?’ To answer that question an entirely different path must be taken than when looking for the physical ancestors. It may be necessary to go back through long, long ages in order to arrive at the previous incarnations of the Ego.
Already you have two streams: the physical body as it stands before you is not a completely new creation, for it springs from the ancestors in the line of physical heredity; nor is the Ego a completely new creation, for it is linked with its previous incarnations. [ 36 ] The same holds good for the intermediate members, the etheric and astral bodies. Most of you know that the etheric body is not a completely new creation but that it too may have taken a path leading through the most diverse forms. The etheric body of Zarathustra reappeared in Moses. It was the same etheric body. If we were to seek out the physical ancestors of Moses this would give us one line; if we were to seek out the ancestors of the etheric body of Moses we should get another, quite different line; here we should come to the etheric body of Zarathustra and to other etheric bodies. [ 37 ] Just as we have to trace quite different lines for the physical body and the etheric body, the same applies to the astral body. Each separate member of the human being might lead to very diverse streams. Thus the etheric body may be the etheric re-embodiment of an etheric body that belonged to a different individuality altogether—not by any means the same in which the Ego was formerly incarnated. And the same can be said of the astral body.
[ 38 ] When we rise into the higher worlds in order to investigate the several members of a human being, the individual streams all take different directions, and in following them we come to very intricate processes in the spiritual world. Whoever wishes to understand a human being from the vantage-point of spiritual investigation, must describe him not merely as a descendant of his ancestors, not merely as having derived his etheric body or his astral body from this or that being, but he must describe the paths taken by all these four members until they unite in the present individual. This cannot be done all at once. For instance, we may trace the path followed by the etheric body and reach important conclusions. Someone else may trace the path of the astral body. The one may lay more stress on the etheric body, the other on the astral body, and frame his descriptions accordingly. To those who do not notice everything said about an individual by men who are clairvoyant, it will make no difference whether one says this and another that; it will seem to them that the same entity is being described. In their eyes the one who describes the physical personality only and the other who describes the etheric body are both speaking of the same being—John Smith.
[ 39 ] All this can give you an idea of the complexity of circumstances and conditions encountered when it is a question of describing the nature of any phenomenon in the world—whether a human or any other being—from the standpoint of clairvoyant research or Initiation-knowledge. I was obliged to say the foregoing because it will help you to understand that only the most extensive investigation in the Akashic Chronicle can present any being in full clarity to the eyes of spirit.
[ 40 ] The Being who stands before us as the Gospel of St. John describes Him—no matter whether we speak of Him as Jesus of Nazareth before the Baptism by John or as Christ after the Baptism—that Being stands before us with an Ego, an astral body, an etheric body and physical body. To give a full description according to the Akashic Chronicle of the Being who was Christ Jesus, we must trace the paths traversed by the four members of His nature in the course of the evolution of humanity. Only then can we rightly understand Him. It is here a question of grasping the meaning of the information regarding the Christ Event given by modern spiritual-scientific investigation, for light must be shed on apparent contradictions in the four Gospels.
[ 41 ] I have often pointed out why purely materialistic research cannot recognize the supreme value and profundity of the Gospel of St. John: it is because those who carry out this research cannot understand that a higher Initiate sees differently, more deeply, than the others. Those who have doubts about the Gospel of St. John attempt to establish a kind of conformity between the three synoptic Gospels. But conformity will be difficult to establish and sustain if it is based only upon the external, material happenings. What will be of particular importance in tomorrow's lecture, namely the life of Jesus of Nazareth before the Baptism by John, is described by two Evangelists, by the writers of the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke, and external, materialistic observation will find differences there that are in no way less than those which must be assumed to exist between the Gospel of St. John and the other three Gospels.
Let us take the facts: The writer of the Gospel of St. Matthew relates how the birth of the Creator of Christianity was announced beforehand, how the birth took place, how Magi, having seen the ‘star’, came from the East, being led by the star to the place where the Redeemer was born; he describes how Herod's attention was aroused and how, in order to escape the massacre of the babes in Bethlehem, the parents of the Redeemer fled with the child to Egypt; when Herod was dead it was made known to Joseph, the father of Jesus, that they might return, but for fear of Herod's successor they went to Nazareth instead of returning to Bethlehem.
To-day I will leave aside the Baptist's proclamation, but I want to draw attention to the fact that if we compare the Gospels of St. Luke and St. Matthew we find the annunciation of Jesus of Nazareth described quite differently; the one Gospel relates that it was made to Mary, the other that it was made to Joseph. From the Gospel of St. Luke we learn that the parents of Jesus of Nazareth lived at that place and went to Bethlehem on the occasion of the enrolling. While they were there, Jesus was born. Then came the circumcision, after eight days—nothing is said about a flight into Egypt—and a short time afterwards the child was presented in the temple; the customary offering having been made, the parents returned with the child to Nazareth. A remarkable incident is then described—how on the occasion of a visit with his parents to Jerusalem the twelve-year-old Jesus remained behind in the temple, how his parents sought and found him there among those who expounded the scriptures, how among the learned doctors of the Law he gave evidence of profound knowledge of the scriptures. Then it is related how the parents took the child home with them again, how he grew up ... and we hear nothing particular about him from that time until the Baptism by John.
[ 42 ] Here we have two accounts of Jesus of Nazareth before the Christ descended into him. Whoever wishes to reconcile the accounts must consider how, according to the ordinary materialistic view, he can reconcile the story in the Gospel of St. Matthew that directly after the birth of Jesus his parents, Joseph and Mary, fled with the child into Egypt and subsequently returned, with the other story of the presentation in the temple narrated by St. Luke.
[ 43 ] In these lectures we shall find that what seems a complete contradiction to the ordinary mind will be revealed as truth in the light of spiritual investigation. Both accounts are true!—although presented as accounts of events in the physical world they are in apparent contradiction. Precisely the three synoptic Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke ought to compel people to adopt a spiritual conception of events in the history of humanity. For it is surely obvious that nothing is attained by ignoring apparent contradictions in such records or by speaking of ‘fiction’ when realities prove too great an obstacle.
[ 44 ] We shall have opportunity here to speak of things of which there was no occasion to speak in detail when we were studying the Gospel of St. John namely, the events that took place before the Baptism by John and the descent of the Christ into the three bodies of Jesus of Nazareth. Many riddles of vital significance concerning the essence of Christianity will find their solution when—as the outcome of research into the Akashic Chronicle—we hear of the being and nature of Jesus of Nazareth before the Christ took possession of his three bodies.
[ 45 ] Tomorrow we shall begin by considering the nature and the life of Jesus of Nazareth as revealed in the Akashic Chronicle, and then ask ourselves: How does the knowledge of Jesus of Nazareth compare with what is described in the Gospel of St. Luke as imparted by those who at that time were ‘seers’ or ‘servants’ of the Word, of the Logos?
Erster Vortrag
[ 1 ] Als wir vor einiger Zeit hier versammelt waren, konnten wir die tieferen Strömungen des Christentums besprechen vom Gesichtspunkte des Johannes-Evangeliums aus. Und es traten damals vor unser geistiges Auge jene gewaltigen Bilder und Ideen, welche der Mensch gewinnen kann, wenn er sich in diese einzigartige Urkunde der Menschheit, eben in das Johannes-Evangelium, vertieft. Wir haben damals bei verschiedenen Gelegenheiten hervorheben müssen, wie die tiefsten Tiefen des Christentums zum Vorschein kommen, wenn man seine Betrachtungen anstellt an der Hand dieser Urkunde. Und es könnte heute wohl mancher der damaligen Zuhörer oder der Zuhörer eines anderen Zyklus über das Johannes-Evangelium sich fragen: Ist es nun möglich, die Gesichtspunkte, welche man in gewisser Hinsicht wirklich als die tiefsten bezeichnen muß, und die man an der Hand des JohannesEvangeliums gewinnen kann, ist es möglich, diese Gesichtspunkte irgendwie zu erweitern oder zu vertiefen durch die Betrachtung der anderen christlichen Urkunden, zum Beispiel der drei anderen Evangelien, durch die Betrachtung des Lukas-Evangeliums, des MatthäusEvangeliums oder des Markus-Evangeliums? Und wer, man möchte sagen, die theoretische Bequemlichkeit liebt, der wird sich fragen: Ist es denn überhaupt nötig, nachdem uns bewußt geworden ist, wie die tiefsten Tiefen der christlichen Wahrheiten uns entgegentreten aus dem Johannes-Evangelium, ist es da überhaupt noch nötig, über das Wesen des Christentums von den anderen Evangelien aus zu verhandeln, namentlich vom Gesichtspunkte des — wie man ja leicht glauben könnte — weniger tiefen Lukas-Evangeliums aus?
[ 2 ] Wer eine solche Frage aufstellte und wer da glaubte, mit einem solchen Gesichtspunkt irgend etwas Wesentliches gesagt zu haben, der würde sich doch einem ganz bedeutsamen Mißverständnis hingeben. Nicht nur, daß das Christentum als solches in seiner Wesenheit unermeßlich ist und daß man es von den verschiedensten Gesichtspunkten aus beleuchten kann, sondern es ist auch das andere richtig — und gerade dieser Zyklus von Vorträgen soll dafür den Beweis liefern —: trotzdem das Johannes-Evangelium eine so unendlich tiefe Urkunde ist, kann man durch die Betrachtung des Lukas-Evangeliums zum Beispiel noch Dinge lernen, die man an der Hand des Johannes-Evangeliums nicht lernen kann. Dasjenige, was wir dazumal im Johannes-EvangeliumZyklus gewohnt worden sind, die tiefen Ideen des Christentums zu nennen, das ist durchaus noch nicht das Christentum in seiner vollen Tiefe; sondern es gibt eine Möglichkeit, von einem anderen Ausgangspunkt aus in die Tiefen des Christentums einzudringen. Und dieser andere Ausgangspunkt soll eben dadurch gewonnen werden, daß wir diesmal das Lukas-Evangelium vom anthroposophischen, geisteswissenschaftlichen Standpunkt aus in den Mittelpunkt unserer Betrachtungen stellen.
[ 3 ] Lassen Sie uns einmal einiges vor unser Auge stellen, um die Behauptung zu verstehen, daß aus dem Lukas-Evangelium noch etwas zu gewinnen sei, wenn man auch die Tiefen des Johannes-Evangeliums ausgeschöpft hat. Wir müssen dabei von dem ausgehen, was uns ja bei der Betrachtung einer jeden Zeile des Johannes-Evangeliums entgegentritt, daß Urkunden, wie die Evangelien es sind, sich gerade für den anthroposophischen Betrachter darstellen als Urkunden, die verfaßt sind von Menschen, die tiefer hineingeschaut haben in das Wesen des Lebens und in das Wesen des Daseins, die als Eingeweihte und als Hellseher in die Tiefen der Welt hineingeschaut haben. Wenn wir so im allgemeinen sprechen, können wir die Ausdrücke «Eingeweihter» und «Hellseher» als gleichbedeutend nebeneinander gebrauchen. Wenn wir aber nunmehr im Verlaufe unserer anthroposophischen Betrachtungen zu tieferen Schichten des Geisteslebens vordringen wollen, dann müssen wir das, was wir anfangs mit Recht nicht unterscheiden, den Hellseher und den Eingeweihten, wir müssen sie als zwei Kategorien von Menschen unterscheiden, die den Weg gefunden haben in die übersinnlichen Gebiete des Daseins. Es ist in gewisser Beziehung ein Unterschied zwischen einem Eingeweihten und einem Hellseher, obwohl nichts, gar nichts dagegen ist, daß der Eingeweihte zugleich ein Hellsehender ist und der Hellsehende zu gleicher Zeit ein in einem gewissen Grade Eingeweihter. Wenn Sie genau unterscheiden wollen zwischen diesen beiden Kategorien von Menschen, dem Eingeweihten und dem Hellseher, dann müssen Sie sich an die Darstellungen erinnern, die in meiner Auseinandersetzung über «Wie erlangt man Erkenntnisse der höheren Welten?» gegeben sind. Sie müssen daran denken, daß es im wesentlichen drei Stufen gibt, die hinausführen über das gewöhnliche Anschauen der Welt.
[ 4 ] Diejenige Erkenntnis, die zunächst dem Menschen zugänglich ist, kann man so charakterisieren, daß der Mensch durch die Sinne die Welt anschaut und durch den Verstand und die anderen Seelenkräfte das Angeschaute sich zu eigen macht, Darüber hinaus gibt es drei andere Stufen des Erkennens der Welt. Die erste ist die der sogenannten imaginativen Erkenntnis, die zweite Stufe ist die der inspirierten Erkenntnis, und die dritte Stufe ist die der intuitiven Erkenntnis, wenn wir das Wort intuitiv in seinem wahren, geisteswissenschaftlichen Sinne erfassen.
[ 5 ] Wer besitzt nun die imaginative Erkenntnis? Derjenige, vor dessen geistigem Auge sich das, was hinter der Sinnenwelt ist, in Bildern ausbreitet, in einem gewaltigen Weltentableau von Bildern, die aber durchaus nicht ähnlich sind dem, was man im gewöhnlichen Leben Bilder nennt. Abgesehen von dem Unterschiede, daß es für diese Bilder der imaginativen Erkenntnis nicht gibt, was wir die Gesetze des dreidimensionalen Raumes nennen, gibt es auch noch andere Eigentümlichkeiten dieser imaginativen Bilder, die sich mit nichts in der gewöhnlichen Sinnenwelt so leicht vergleichen lassen.
[ 6 ] Wir können zu einer Vorstellung der imaginativen Welt gelangen, wenn wir uns denken, eine Pflanze stehe vor uns, und wir würden in der Lage sein, alles, was dem Sinn des Auges als Farbe wahrnehmbar ist, herauszuziehen aus der Pflanze, so daß es förmlich frei in der Luft schwebt. Würden wir nun nichts anderes tun, als diese an der Pflanze befindliche Farbe herausziehen und frei vor uns schweben lassen, dann hätten wir eine tote Farbengestalt vor uns. Für den hellsichtigen Menschen aber bleibt diese Farbengestalt durchaus nicht ein totes Farbenbild, sondern wenn er das, was in den Dingen, Farbe ist, herauszieht aus den Dingen, dann fängt durch seine Vorbereitungen und Übungen dieses Farbenbild an, von dem Geistigen belebt zu werden, geradeso wie es in der sinnlichen Welt durch das Stoffliche der Pflanzen belebt war; und der Mensch hat dann vor sich nicht eine tote Farbengestalt, sondern, frei schwebend, farbiges Licht, in der mannigfaltigsten Weise schillernd und sprühend, aber innerlich belebt. So daß eine jede Farbe der Ausdruck ist der Eigentümlichkeit einer geistig-seelischen Wesenheit, die in der Sinnenwelt nicht wahrnehmbar ist; das heißt, es fängt die Farbe in der sinnlichen Pflanze an, für den Hellseher Ausdruck zu werden für seelisch-geistige Wesenheiten.
[ 7 ] Denken Sie sich nun eine Welt, erfüllt von solchen in der mannigfaltigsten Weise spiegelnden Farbengestalten, sich ewig wandelnd, umgestaltend, aber nicht den Blick beschränkt auf das Farbige wie etwa bei einem Gemälde von flimmernden Farbenreflexen, sondern denken Sie sich das alles als Ausdruck von geistig-seelischen Wesenheiten, so daß Sie sich sagen: Wenn hier aufblitzt ein grünes Farbenbild, so ist es mir der Ausdruck dafür, daß ein verständiges Wesen dahinter ist; oder wenn aufblitzt ein hellrötliches Farbenbild, so ist es mir der Ausdruck von etwas, was eine leidenschaftliche Wesenheit ist. Denken Sie sich nun dieses ganze Meer von ineinanderspielenden Farben — ich könnte ebensogut ein anderes Beispiel nehmen und sagen: ein Meer von ineinanderspielenden Tonempfindungen oder Geruchs- oder Geschmacksempfindungen, denn das alles sind Ausdrücke von dahinterstehenden geistig-seelischen Wesenheiten —, dann haben Sie das, was man die imaginative Welt nennt. Es ist nicht etwas, wofür man wie im gewöhnlichen Sprachgebrauch das Wort Imagination verwendet, eine Einbildung, sondern das ist eine reale Welt. Es ist eine andere Art der Auffassung, als es die sinnesgemäße ist.
[ 8 ] Innerhalb dieser imaginativen Welt tritt dem Menschen alles das entgegen, was hinter der Sinnenwelt ist und was er mit seinen «sinnlichen Sinnen», wenn wir den Ausdruck gebrauchen wollen, nicht wahrnimmt, also zum Beispiel des Menschen Ätherleib, des Menschen astralischer Leib. Wer als ein hellsichtiger Mensch die Welt also kennenlernt durch diese imaginative Erkenntnis, der lernt höhere Wesenheiten gleichsam von ihrer Außenseite her kennen, so wie Sie in der Sinnenwelt, wenn Sie auf der Straße gehen und die Menschen an Ihnen vorbeigehen, diese von ihrer sinnlichen Außenseite kennenlernen. Sie lernen sie genauer kennen, wenn Sie Gelegenheit haben, mit den Menschen zu sprechen. Da drücken Ihnen die Menschen durch ihre Worte noch etwas anderes aus als das, was Sie sehen, wenn sie Ihnen nur auf der Straße begegnen und sie ansehen. An manchem, an dem Sie vorbeigehen um nur das eine zu sagen -, können Sie nicht sehen, ob innerlicher Schmerz oder Freude in der Seele ist, ob Gram oder Entzücken die Seele durchglüht. Das alles aber können Sie erfahren, wenn Sie mit einem Menschen sprechen. Das eine Mal kündet er Ihnen durch das, was Sie sehen können ohne sein Zutun, seine Außenseite an, das andere Mal spricht er sich selbst für Sie aus. So ist es auch mit den Wesenheiten der übersinnlichen Welt.
[ 9 ] Wer als Hellseher die Wesenheiten der übersinnlichen Welt durch die imaginative Erkenntnis kennenlernt, der lernt gleichsam nur die geistigseelische Außenseite kennen. Aber er hört sie sich selbst aussprechen, wenn er aufsteigt von der imaginativen Erkenntnis zu der Erkenntnis durch Inspiration. Da ist es dann wirklich ein richtiger Verkehr mit diesen Wesenheiten. Da teilen sie ihm aus ihrer eigenen Wesenheit heraus mit, was sie sind und wer sie sind. Daher ist die Inspiration eine höhere Erkenntnisstufe als die bloße Imagination, und man erfährt mehr über die Wesen der geistig-seelischen Welt, wenn man aufsteigt zur Inspiration, als man durch die imaginative Erkenntnis gewinnen kann.
[ 10 ] Eine noch höhere Stufe der Erkenntnis ist dann die Intuition, sofern man das Wort Intuition nicht wie im gewöhnlichen Sprachgebrauch anwendet, wo alles Unklare, was einem einfällt, Intuition genannt wird, sondern wenn man den Begriff Intuition in dem wirklich geisteswissenschaftlichen Sinne nimmt. Da ist die Intuition eine Erkenntnis, wo man nicht nur geistig hinhorchen kann auf das, was die Wesenheiten aus sich selbst heraus einem mitteilen, sondern wo man eins wird mit diesen Wesenheiten, wo man in die eigene Wesenheit derselben untertaucht. Das ist eine hohe Stufe der geistigen Erkenntnis. Denn sie erfordert, daß der Mensch zuerst jene Liebesentfaltung zu allen Wesenheiten in sich vollzieht, wo er keinen Unterschied mehr macht zwischen sich und den anderen Wesenheiten in der geistigen Umgebung, wo er seine Wesenheit sozusagen ausgegossen hat in die ganze geistige Umgebung, wo er also wirklich nicht mehr außerhalb der Wesenheiten ist, die mit ihm geistig verkehren, sondern wo er innerhalb dieser Wesenheiten ist, in ihnen steht. Und weil das nur sein kann gegenüber einer geistiggöttlichen Welt, so ist der Ausdruck Intuition, das ist «im Gotte stehen», ganz berechtigt. — So also erscheinen uns zunächst diese drei Stufen der Erkenntnis der übersinnlichen Welt: die Imagination, die Inspiration und die Intuition.
[ 11 ] Nun gibt es natürlich die Möglichkeit, sich diese drei Stufen der übersinnlichen Erkenntnis anzueignen. Aber es ist auch möglich, zum Beispiel in irgendeiner Inkarnation nur vorzudringen bis zu der Stufe der Imagination; dann bleiben dem betreffenden Hellseher diejenigen Gebiete der geistigen Welt verborgen, die nur durch die Inspiration und die Intuition zu erreichen sind. Dann ist der Mensch ein «hellsichtiger» Mensch. — In unserer heutigen Zeit ist es im allgemeinen nicht üblich, die Menschen zu den höheren Stufen der übersinnlichen Erkenntnis hinaufzuführen, ohne sie vorher die Stufe der Imagination durchschreiten zu lassen, so daß für unsere gegenwärtigen Verhältnisse kaum die Möglichkeit eintreten kann, daß jemand sozusagen ausläßt die Stufe der Imagination und gleich durchgeführt wird zur Stufe der Inspiration oder der Intuition. Was aber heute keineswegs das Richtige wäre, das konnte in gewissen anderen Zeiten der Menschheitsentwickelung dennoch eintreten und ist auch eingetreten.
[ 12 ] Es gab Zeiten in der Menschheitsentwickelung, in denen man die Stufen der übersinnlichen Erkenntnis sozusagen auf verschiedene Individuen verteilt hatte: Imagination auf der einen Seite, Inspiration und Intuition auf der anderen Seite. $o daß es zum Beispiel Mysterienstätten gegeben hat, wo Menschen das geistige Auge so offen hatten, daß sie hellseherisch waren für das Gebiet der Imagination, daß ihnen zugänglich war jene symbolische Welt der Bilder. Dadurch, daß diese Menschen, die so weit hellsichtig waren, sich sagten: Für diese Inkarnation verzichte ich darauf, die höheren Stufen, Inspiration und Intuition, zu erreichen —, dadurch haben sie sich geeignet gemacht, genau und deutlich zu sehen innerhalb der Welt des Imaginativen. Sie haben sich sozusagen in ganz besonderem Maße trainiert, in dieser Welt des Imaginativen zu sehen.
[ 13 ] Nun aber war eines dazu für sie notwendig. Wer nur in der Welt des Imaginativen sehen will und darauf verzichtet, zu der Welt der Inspiration und der Intuition vorzudringen, der lebt in einer gewissen Weise in einer Welt der Unsicherheit. Diese Welt des flutenden ‚Imaginativen ist sozusagen uferlos, und man schwimmt darinnen, wenn man sich selbst überlassen bleibt, mit seiner Seele hin und her, ohne daß man eigentlich genau Richtung und Ziel kennt. Daher war es in jenen Zeiten und bei den Völkern, bei denen von gewissen Menschen auf die höheren Erkenntnisstufen verzichtet wurde, notwendig, daß sich die hellsichtigen, imaginativen Menschen ganz hingebungsvoll an ihre Führer anschlossen, an diejenigen, welche offen hatten das geistige Anschauungsvermögen für die Inspiration und für die Intuition. Denn erst Inspiration und Intuition geben Sicherheit für die geistige Welt, so daß man genau weiß: Dahin geht der Weg, dort ist ein Ziel. - Dagegen kann man sich, wenn einem die inspirierte Erkenntnis mangelt, nicht sagen: Da geht der Weg, dahin muß ich gehen, um zu einem Ziele zu kommen. -— Kann man sich also das nicht selbst sagen, dann muß man sich der kundigen Führung eines Menschen anvertrauen, der einem das sagen kann. Daher wird an so vielen Orten immer mit Recht betont, daß derjenige, der zunächst aufsteigt zur imaginativen Erkenntnis, innig sich anzuschließen hat an den Guru, an den Führer, der ihm Richtung und Ziel gibt in bezug auf das, was er sich nicht selbst geben kann.
[ 14 ] Auf der anderen Seite aber war es auch in gewissen Zeiten nützlich — heute wird das nicht mehr getan -—, andere Menschen die imaginative Erkenntnis in gewisser Weise überspringen zu lassen und sie gleich hinaufzuführen zur inspirierten Erkenntnis oder womöglich zur intuitiven Erkenntnis. SolcheMenschen verzichteten darauf, die imaginativen Bilder der geistigen Welt um sich zu sehen; sie gaben sich nur hin jenen Eindrücken aus der geistigen Welt, die da Ausflüsse des Inneren der geistigen Wesenheiten sind. Sie hörten hin mit Geistesohren, was die Wesenheiten der geistigen Welt sprechen. Es ist so, wie wenn Sie eine Wand hätten zwischen sich und einem anderen Menschen und diesen Menschen nicht selbst sehen; aber Sie hören ihn hinter der Wand sprechen. Diese Möglichkeit ist durchaus vorhanden, daß sozusagen Menschen verzichten auf das Anschauen in der geistigen Welt, um dadurch schneller geführt zu werden zu dem geistigen Hinhorchen auf die Aussagen der geistigen Wesenheiten, Ganz gleichgültig, ob jemand die Bil a der der imaginativen Welt sieht oder nicht, wenn er imstande ist, mit Geistesohren zu vernehmen, was die in der übersinnlichen Welt befindlichen Wesenheiten über sich selbst zu sagen haben, dann sagen wir von einem solchen Menschen: Er ist begabt mit dem «inneren Wort» —, im Gegensatz zu dem äußeren Wort, das wir in der physischen Welt von Mensch zu Mensch haben. So also können wir uns die Vorstellung bilden, daß es auch Menschen gibt, welche, ohne die imaginative Welt zu schauen, das innere Wort haben und die Aussprüche der geistigen Wesenheiten vernehmen und sie mitteilen können.
[ 15 ] Es gab eine Zeit in der Entwickelung der Menschheit, da war es in den Mysterien so, daß diese zwei Arten von übersinnlichen Erfahrungen der Erkennenden zusammenwirkten. Und weil dadurch, daß ein jeder von ihnen auf die Anschauung des anderen verzichtete, er das, was er vermochte, genauer und deutlicher ausbilden konnte, weil das der Fall war, ergab sich ein schönes, ein wunderschönes Zusammenwirken in gewissen Zeiten innerhalb der Mysterien. Man hatte sozusagen imaginative Hellseher; die hatten sich besonders dazu trainiert, die Welt der Bilder zu schauen. Und man hatte solche, welche die Welt des Imaginativen übersprungen hatten; sie hatten sich besonders dazu trainiert, das innere Wort, was erfahren wird durch die Inspiration, in ihre Seele aufzunehmen. Und so konnte der eine dem anderen mitteilen, was er durch seine besondere 'Trainierung erfahren hatte. Das war möglich in den Zeiten, wo von Mensch zu Mensch ein Grad von Vertrauen vorhanden war, der heute ausgeschlossen ist — einfach durch unsere Zeitentwickelung. Heute glaubt nicht ein Mensch dem anderen so stark, daß er nur hinhorchen würde auf das, was der andere schildert als die Bilder der imaginativen Welt, und dann hinzufügen würde, was er selbst aus der Inspiration weiß, im treuen Glauben darauf, daß die Schilderungen des andern richtig sind. Heute will jeder Mensch selbst sehen. Das ist die berechtigte Art unserer Zeit. Die wenigsten Menschen würden heute zufrieden sein mit einer einseitigen Ausbildung der Imagination, wie sie in gewissen Zeiten gang und gäbe war. Deshalb ist es auch für die heutige Zeit notwendig, daß der Mensch nach und nach geführt wird durch die drei Stufen der höheren Erkenntnis, ohne die eine oder die andere auszulassen.
[ 16 ] Auf allen Stufen der übersinnlichen Erkenntnis treffen wir die großen Geheimnisse an, welche sich an jenes Ereignis knüpfen, das wir das Christus-Ereignis nennen, so daß die imaginative Erkenntnis, die inspirierte Erkenntnis und die intuitive Erkenntnis vieles, unendlich vieles zu sagen haben über dieses Christus-Ereignis.
[ 17 ] Wenn wir nun, von diesem Gesichtspunkt ausgehend, einmal unseren Blick auf die vier Evangelien zurückwenden, so dürfen wir sagen, daß das Johannes-Evangelium geschrieben ist vom Standpunkte eines Eingeweihten, der drinnen stand in den Geheimnissen der Welt bis zur Intuition hinauf, der also das Christus-Ereignis für die Anschauung der übersinnlichen Welt bis zur Intuition hinauf schildert. Wer aber genau eingeht auf die Eigentümlichkeiten des Johannes-Evangeliums, der wird — wie wir gerade in diesem Vortragszyklus sehen werden - sich sagen müssen, daß alles das, was uns im Johannes-Evangelium besonders deutlich entgegentritt, vom Standpunkte der Inspiration und der Intuition gesagt ist, und daß alles, was sich aus Bildern der Imagination ergibt, dagegen verblaßt und undeutlich ist. So dürfen wir den Verfasser des Johannes-Evangeliums — wenn wir absehen von dem, was er doch noch von der Imagination hereingenommen hat —, wir dürfen ihn nennen den Botschafter alles dessen in bezug auf das Christus-Ereignis, was sich für den ergibt, der das innere Wort hat bis hinauf zur Intuition. Deshalb spricht der Schreiber des Johannes-Evangeliums im wesentlichen so, daß er uns die Geheimnisse des Christus-Reiches charakterisiert als beeigenschaftet durch das innere Wort oder den Logos. Eine inspiriert-intuitive Erkenntnis liegt dem Johannes-Evangelium zugrunde.
[ 18 ] Anders ist das bei den anderen drei Evangelien. Und keiner der anderen Evangelienschreiber hat das, was er eigentlich zu sagen hat, so klar ausgedrückt wie gerade der Schreiber des Lukas-Evangeliums.
[ 19 ] Eine kurze, merkwürdige Vorrede geht dem Lukas-Evangelium voran, eine Vorrede, die ungefähr sagt, daß sich mancherlei Menschen vor dem Schreiber des Lukas-Evangeliums schon daran gemacht hätten, allerlei Erzählungen zu sammeln und darzustellen, die im Umlaufe waren über die Ereignisse von Palästina, und daß, um dieses genauer und ordentlicher zu machen, nunmehr der Schreiber des Lukas-Evangeliums es unternimmt, dasjenige darzustellen, was —- und nun kommen bedeutungsvolle Worte — diejenigen mitzuteilen wissen, die von Anfang an — gewöhnlich wird nun übersetzt — «Augenzeugen und Diener des Wortes waren» (Lukas 1,1-2). Also der Schreiber des Lukas-Evangeliums will mitteilen, was diejenigen zu sagen haben, die Augenzeugen — besser würden wir das Wort «Selbstseher» gebrauchen —- und Diener des Wortes waren. Im Sinne des Lukas-Evangeliums sind «Selbstseher» solche Menschen, welche die imaginative Erkenntnis haben, die eindringen können in die Welt der Bilder und dort das Christus-Ereignis wahrnehmen, die besonders dazu trainiert sind, durch solche Imaginationen zu schauen, Selbstseher, die genau und deutlich sehen — deren Mitteilungen legt der Schreiber des Lukas-Evangeliums zugrunde — und die zugleich «Diener des Wortes» waren. Ein bedeutungsvolles Wort! Er sagt nicht «Besitzer» des Wortes, denn das wären Leute, welche die volle inspirierte Erkenntnis haben, sondern «Diener» des Wortes, Diener derjenigen also, denen nicht in demselben Maße wie ihnen durch ihr Selbstschauen die Imaginationen zur Verfügung stehen, sondern denen Kundgebungen der inspirierten Welt zur Verfügung stehen. Ihnen, den Dienern, wird mitgeteilt, was der Inspirierte wahrnimmt; sie können es verkünden, weil es ihnen ihre inspirierten Lehrer gesagt haben. Sie sind Diener, nicht Besitzer des Wortes.
[ 20 ] So also geht das Lukas-Evangelium zurück auf die Mitteilungen derjenigen, die Selbstseher, Selbsterfahrer sind in den imaginativen Welten, welche gelernt haben, dasjenige, was sie in der imaginativen Welt schauen, mit den Mitteln auszudrücken, welche der inspirierte Mensch hat, die sich also zu Dienern des Wortes gemacht haben.
[ 21 ] Wiederum haben wir hier ein Beispiel, wie genau in den Evangelien gesprochen ist und wie wir die Worte genau wörtlich verstehen müssen. Alles ist exakt und genau in solchen auf Grundlage der Geisteswissenschaft verfaßten Urkunden, und der moderne Mensch hat oft gar keine Ahnung von der Genauigkeit, von der Exaktheit, mit der die Worte in diesen Urkunden gewählt werden.
[ 22 ] Nun aber müssen wir — so wie jedesmal, wenn wir vom anthroposophischen Gesichtspunkt aus solche Betrachtungen anstellen — auch diesmal daran erinnern, daß für die Geisteswissenschaft nicht im eigentlichen Sinne die Evangelien Quellen der Erkenntnis sind. Dadurch, daß irgend etwas in den Evangelien steht, würde es für denjenigen, der streng auf dem Boden der Geisteswissenschaft steht, durchaus noch nicht eine Wahrheit sein. Der Geisteswissenschafter schöpft nicht aus geschriebenen Urkunden, sondern der Geisteswissenschafter schöpft aus dem, was die geisteswissenschaftliche Forschung selbst zu seiner Zeit gibt. Was zu unserer Zeit die Wesen der geistigen Welt dem Eingeweihten und dem Hellseher zu sagen haben, das sind die Quellen für die eigentliche Geisteswissenschaft, für die Eingeweihten und für die Hellseher. Und diese Quellen sind in unserer Zeit in gewisser Beziehung dieselben wie in jenen Zeiten, die ich Ihnen eben geschildert habe. Daher kann man auch heute hellsichtige Menschen diejenigen nennen, welche in die imaginative Welt Einsicht haben, und Eingeweihte kann man erst solche nennen, welche sich erheben können zur Stufe der Inspiration und Intuition. So braucht für diese Zeiten der Ausdruck des Hellsehers nicht zusammenzufallen mit dem des Eingeweihten.
[ 23 ] Was uns im Johannes-Evangelium begegnet, konnte nur auf der Forschung des Eingeweihten beruhen, der hinaufsteigen konnte bis zur inspirierten und intuitiven Erkenntnis. Was uns in den anderen Evangelien entgegentritt, das konnte beruhen auf Mitteilungen von imaginativen, von hellsichtigen Menschen, die also noch nicht selbst hinaufsteigen konnten in die inspirierte und intuitive Welt. So beruht, wenn wir den heutigen Unterschied streng festhalten, das Johannes-Evangelium auf der Einweihung; die drei übrigen Evangelien, vorzugsweise das Lukas-Evangelium, sogar nach dem Ausspruche des Schreibers selbst, auf der Hellsichtigkeit. Und weil es insbesondere auf der Hellsichtigkeit beruht, weil alles zu Hilfe gerufen wird, was der trainierteste Hellseher zu schauen vermag, bietet sich uns ein genaues Bild für das, was uns im Johannes-Evangelium nur in verblaßten Bildern dargestellt werden kann. Um den Unterschied noch genauer hervorzuheben, möchte ich folgendes sagen.
[ 24 ] Nehmen Sie an — was allerdings heute kaum der Fall ist —, daß ein Mensch eingeweiht würde, so daß die Welt der Inspiration und der Intuition für ihn offenstände, daß er aber nicht hellsichtig wäre, daß er also nicht die imaginative Welt erkennen könnte. Ein solcher Mensch begegne einem andern Menschen, der vielleicht gar nicht eingeweiht ist, dem aber durch irgendwelche Umstände die imaginative Welt offensteht, so daß er das ganze Feld der Imaginationen schauen kann. Ein Mensch der letzteren Art könnte dem ersteren sehr viel mitteilen, was der erstere nicht schaut, was dieser erstere vielleicht erst aus der Inspiration heraus erklären kann, was er aber nicht selbst schauen kann, weil ihm die Hellsichtigkeit fehlt. Menschen, die hellsichtig sind, ohne eingeweiht zu sein, sind heute sehr zahlreich; das Umgekehrte ist heute kaum der Fall. Dennoch könnte es sein, daß irgendein eingeweihter Mensch zwar die Gabe der Hellsichtigkeit hat, aber aus irgendwelchen Gründen im einzelnen Falle nicht zum Schauen der Imäginationen kommen kann. Dann könnte ein hellsichtiger Mensch ihm vieles erzählen, was ihm noch unbekannt ist.
[ 25 ] Daß die Anthroposophie oder Geisteswissenschaft nicht auf etwas anderem als auf den Quellen der Eingeweihten fußt, daß also weder das Johannes-Evangelium noch die anderen Evangelien Quellen ihrer Erkenntnis sind, muß immer strenge betont werden. Was heute erforscht werden kann ohne eine historische Urkunde, das ist die Quelle für das anthroposophische Erkennen. Dann aber gehen wir an die Urkunden heran und suchen das, was die Geistesforschung heute finden kann, mit den Urkunden zu vergleichen. Was die Geistesforschung heute ohne eine Urkunde finden kann über das Christus-Ereignis — zu jeder Stunde finden kann -, das finden wir in der. großartigsten Weise im JohannesEvangelium wieder. Und darum ist es eine so wertvolle Schrift, weil es uns zeigt, daß damals, als es geschrieben wurde, einer da war, der so geschrieben hat, wie heute einer, der in die geistige Welt eingeweiht ist, schreiben kann. Sozusagen dieselbe Stimme, die heute wahrgenommen werden kann, kommt zu uns aus den Tiefen der Jahrhunderte.
[ 26 ] Ein Ähnliches ist für die anderen Evangelien und auch für das Lukas-Evangelium der Fall. Nicht die Bilder, die uns der Schreiber des Lukas-Evangeliums schildert, sind für uns die Quellen der Erkenntnis der höheren Welten, sondern das ist für uns die Quelle, was uns die Erhebung in die übersinnliche Welt selbst gibt. Und wenn wir von dem Christus-Ereignis sprechen, dann ist für uns die Quelle auch jenes große Tableau der Bilder und Imaginationen, die sich uns ergeben, wenn wir den Blick hinrichten auf das, was im Anfange unserer Zeitrechnung dasteht. Und was sich uns selber darstellt, das vergleichen wir mit den Bildern und Imaginationen, die uns geschildert werden im LukasEvangelium. Und dieser Zyklus von Vorträgen soll uns zeigen, wie die imaginativen Bilder, die der heutige Mensch gewinnt, sich ausnehmen gegenüber den Schilderungen, die uns im Lukas-Evangelium entgegentreten.
[ 27 ] Es ist wahr, für die geistige Forschung, wenn sie sich auf die Ereignisse der Vergangenheit erstreckt, gibt es nur eine Quelle. Diese Quelle liegt nicht in äußeren Urkunden. Nicht Steine, die wir aus der Erde graben, nicht Dokumente, die in den Archiven aufbewahrt sind, nicht das, was die Geschichtsschreiber geschrieben haben, ob inspiriert oder nicht inspiriert, sind die Quelle der Geisteswissenschaft. Was wir zu lesen vermögen in der unvergänglichen Chronik, in der AkashaChronik, das ist für uns die Quelle für die geistige Forschung. Es gibt die Möglichkeit, das, was sich zugetragen hat, ohne äußere Urkunde zu erkennen.
[ 28 ] So kann der heutige Mensch zwei Wege wählen, um Kunde zu erhalten von der Vergangenheit. Er kann die äußeren Dokumente nehmen, wenn er etwas erfahren will über die äußeren Ereignisse, die geschichtlichen Urkunden, oder, wenn er über geistige Verhältnisse etwas erfahren will, die religiösen Urkunden. Oder aber er kann fragen: Was wissen diejenigen Menschen zu sagen, die selbst für ihr geistiges Auge geöffnet haben jene unvergängliche Chronik, die wir die AkashaChronik nennen, jenes große Tableau, in welchem alles in unvergänglicher Schrift verzeichnet steht, was jemals geschehen ist in der Welt-, Erden- und Menschheitsentwickelung?
[ 29 ] Diese Chronik lernt der Mensch, der sich in die übersinnlichen Welten erhebt, allmählich lesen. Das ist nicht eine gewöhnliche Schrift. Denken Sie sich den Lauf der Ereignisse, wie sie sich abgespielt haben, vor Ihr geistiges Auge gestellt. Denken Sie sich den Kaiser Augustus mit allen seinen Taten wie in einem Nebelbild vor Ihren Augen dastehen. Alles, was damals sich zugetragen hat, steht da vor Ihrem geistigen Auge. So steht es vor dem Geistesforscher, und er kann es jede Stunde aufs neue erfahren. Er braucht keine äußeren Zeugnisse, Er braucht nur seinen Blick hinzurichten auf einen bestimmten Punkt des Welten- oder des Menschheitsgeschehens, und es werden sich ihm in einem geistigen Bilde die Ereignisse vor Augen stellen, die geschehen sind. So kann der geistige Blick schweifen durch die Zeiten der Vergangenheit. Was er da erschaut, das wird verzeichnet als Ergebnis der Geistesforschung.
[ 30 ] Was geschah damals in den Zeiten, mit denen unsere Zeitrechnung beginnt? Was da geschah, das wird durch den geistigen Blick erschaut und kann verglichen werden mit dem, was uns zum Beispiel das LukasEvangelium erzählt. Dann erkennt der Geistesforscher, daß es damals eben solche geistig Schauenden gegeben hat, die ebenso das, was Vergangenheit war, gesehen haben; und wir können vergleichen, wie sich das, was sie uns als ihre Gegenwart mitteilen können, zu dem verhält, was der Rückblick in die Akasha-Chronik von der damaligen Zeit erschauen kann.
[ 31 ] Das müssen wir uns immer wiederum vor die Seele stellen, daß wir nicht aus den Urkunden schöpfen, sondern daß wir schöpfen aus der geistigen Forschung selbst und daß wir dasjenige, was aus der Geistesforschung geschöpft wird, in den Urkunden wieder aufsuchen. Dadurch gewinnen die Urkunden einen erhöhten Wert, und wir können über die Wahrheit dessen, was in ihnen steht, aus unserer eigenen Forschung entscheiden. Dadurch wachsen sie vor uns als Ausdruck der Wahrheit, weil wir die Wahrheit selbst erkennen können. Man darf eine solche Sache, wie sie eben geschildert worden ist, nicht aussprechen, ohne zugleich darauf hinzuweisen, daß dieses Lesen in der Akasha-Chronik nicht so leicht ist wie etwa das Anschauen der Ereignisse in der physischen Welt. An einem besonderen Beispiele möchte ich Ihnen anschaulich machen, wo zum Beispiel gewisse Schwierigkeiten liegen beim Lesen der Akasha-Chronik. Ich möchte es Ihnen anschaulich machen an dem Menschen selber.
[ 32 ] Wir wissen aus der elementaren Anthroposophie, daß der Mensch aus dem physischen Leib, dem Atherleib, dem astralischen Leib und dem Ich besteht. In dem Augenblick, wo man den Menschen nicht mehr bloß auf dem physischen Plan beobachtet, sondern hinaufsteigt in die geistige Welt, da beginnen die Schwierigkeiten. Wenn Sie einen Menschen physisch vor sich haben, da haben Sie eine Einheit vor sich; da haben Sie seinen physischen Leib, da haben Sie seinen Ätherleib, seinen astralischen Leib und sein Ich. Wenn man den Menschen während des Tagwachens beobachtet, hat man das alles in einer Einheit vor sich. In dem Augenblick, wo man den Menschen nicht während des Tagwachens beobachtet, sondern wo man, um ihn zu beobachten, hinaufsteigen muß in die höheren Welten, wo dieses Hinaufsteigen eine Notwendigkeit wird, da beginnen sogleich die Schwierigkeiten. Wenn wir zum Beispiel in der Nacht, wenn wir den ganzen Menschen sehen wollen, in die Welt der Imaginationen hinaufsteigen, um zum Beispiel den astralischen Leib zu sehen - denn der ist außerhalb des physischen Leibes -—, dann haben wir das Wesen des Menschen in zwei voneinander getrennte Glieder geteilt.
[ 33 ] Was ich jetzt schildere, wird zwar in den seltensten Fällen eintreten, weil die Beobachtung des Menschen doch noch verhältnismäßig leicht ist; aber Sie können sich daran ein Bild machen von den Schwierigkeiten. Denken Sie sich, jemand betritt einen Raum, wo eine Anzahl von Menschen schlafen. Da sieht er in den Betten liegen die physischen Leiber und die Ätherleiber, wenn er die Fähigkeit der Hellsichtigkeit hat; dann sieht er, wenn er sich hellsichtig erhebt, die astralischen Leiber. Aber diese Welt des Astralischen ist eine Welt der Durchgängigkeit. Da oben in der astralischen Welt gehen die astralischen Leiber durcheinander durch. Und wenn es auch für den geschulten Hellseher nicht leicht eintreten wird, so könnte es doch eintreten, daß, wenn er hinschaut auf einen ganzen Trupp von Menschen, die da schlafen, er da leicht verwechseln kann, welcher Astralleib zu einem physischen Leib da unten gehört. Ich sagte, es geschehe nicht leicht, daß das vorkommt, weil dieses Schauen verhältnismäßig zu den niedersten Graden gehört und weil der Mensch, der dazu kommt, gut vorbereitet wird, wie man in solchem Falle zu unterscheiden hat. Aber wenn man in den höheren Welten nicht den Menschen betrachtet, sondern andere geistige Wesenheiten, dann beginnen die Schwierigkeiten schon ganz große zu werden. Ja, sie sind schon ganz große für den Menschen, wenn man ihn nicht als gegenwärtigen Menschen, sondern in seiner ganzen Wesenheit betrachtet, wie er durch die Inkarnationen durchgeht.
[ 34 ] Wenn Sie also einen Menschen, der jetzt lebt, so betrachten, daß Sie sich fragen: Wo war dessen Ich in der vorhergehenden Inkarnation? so müssen Sie durch die devachanische Welt durchgehen zu seiner vorherigen Inkarnation. Sie müssen feststellen können, welches Ich immer zu den vorhergehenden Inkarnationen dieses betreffenden Menschen gehört hat. Da müssen Sie schon in komplizierter Weise zusammenhalten können das kontinuierliche Ich und die verschiedenen Stufen hier unten auf der Erde. Da ist schon sehr leicht ein Fehler möglich, und da kann sehr leicht ein Irrtum begangen werden, wenn der Aufenthalt eines Ich in den früheren Leibern gesucht wird. Wenn man also hinaufkommt in die höheren Welten, ist es nicht so leicht, alles, was zu einem Menschen, was zu einer Persönlichkeit gehört, zusammenzuhalten mit dem, was in der Akasha-Chronik verzeichnet ist als seine früheren Inkarnationen.
[ 35 ] Nehmen Sie einmal an, jemand stellte sich die folgende Aufgabe. Er hätte einen Menschen vor sich, sagen wir Hans Müller. Er fragt als hellsichtiger oder eingeweihter Mensch: Welches sind die physischen Vorfahren dieses Hans Müller? Nehmen wir an, alle äußeren physischen Urkunden seien verlorengegangen, man könnte sich nur auf die AkashaChronik verlassen. Er hätte also da die physischen Vorfahren aufzusuchen, er müßte Vater, Mutter, Großvater und so weiter aus der Akasha-Chronik festzustellen suchen, um zu sehen, wie sich der physische Leib entwickelt hat in der physischen Abstammungslinie. Dann aber könnte weiter die Frage entstehen: Welches waren die früheren Inkarnationen dieses Menschen? Da muß er einen ganz andern ‘Weg gehen, als er geht, um zu den physischen Vorfahren des Menschen zu kommen. Da wird er vielleicht viele, viele Zeiten zurückverfolgen müssen, wenn er zu den früheren Inkarnationen des Ich kommen will. Da haben Sie schon zwei Strömungen. Weder ist der physische Leib, wie er vor uns steht, ein ganz neues Geschöpf, denn er stammt in der physischen Vererbungslinie von den Ahnen ab, noch ist das Ich ein ganz neues Geschöpf, denn es gliedert sich an die früheren Inkarnationen an.
[ 36 ] Was aber für den physischen Leib und für das Ich gilt, das gilt auch für die dazwischenstehenden Glieder, den Ätherleib, den astralischen Leib. Die meisten von Ihnen werden wissen, daß auch der Ätherleib nicht ein durchaus neues Geschöpf ist, sondern daß er auch irgendeinen Weg durch die verschiedensten Formen durchgegangen sein kann. Ich habe Ihnen gesagt, wie der Ätherleib des Zarathustra wiedererschienen ist in dem Atherleibe des Moses, — das ist derselbe Atherleib. Würde man nun die physischen Vorfahren des Moses untersuchen, so bekäme man die eine Linie. Würde man die Vorfahren des Atherleibes des Moses untersuchen, so bekäme man eine andere Linie: da kämen Sie zu dem Ätherleibe des Zarathustra hinauf und zu anderen Ätherleibern.
[ 37 ] Geradeso wie man für den physischen Leib ganz andere Strömungen zu verfolgen hat als für den Atherleib, so ist es auch beim astralischen Leib. Wir können von jedem Gliede der menschlichen Natur aus in die verschiedensten Strömungen kommen. So können wir sagen: Der Atherleib ist die ätherische Wiederverkörperung eines Ätherleibes, der in einer ganz anderen Individualität war, durchaus nicht in derselben, in der das Ich vorher verkörpert war. Und ebenso können wir das für den astralischen Leib sagen.
[ 38 ] Wenn wir in die höheren Welten hinaufkommen, um einen Menschen zu untersuchen auf seine früheren Glieder hin, so gehen da die einzelnen Strömungen alle auseinander. Die eine führt uns nach der, die andere nach jener Richtung, und wir kommen da zu sehr komplizierten Vorgängen in der geistigen Welt. Wenn nun jemand einen Menschen vom Gesichtspunkte der Geistesforschung aus vollständig verstehen will, so darf er ihn nicht bloß schildern als einen Nachkommen seiner Ahnen, nicht bloß, daß er seinen Ätherleib herleitet von diesem oder jenem Wesen, oder seinen astralischen Leib von diesem oder jenem Wesen, sondern er muß vollständig schildern, wie alle diese vier Glieder ihren Weg gemacht haben, bis sie sich jetzt in dieser Wesenheit zusammengeschlossen haben. Das kann man nicht auf einmal machen. Man kann zum Beispiel den Weg, den der Ätherleib zurückgelegt hat, verfolgen und kann da zu wichtigen Aufschlüssen kommen. Es kann dann ein anderer Mensch den Weg des astralischen Leibes verfolgen. Der eine kann auf den Ätherleib, der andere auf den astralischen Leib mehr Gewicht legen und demgemäß seine Schilderungen abfassen. Für denjenigen, der alles das nicht beobachtet, was die hellsichtigen Menschen über eine Wesenheit sagen, für den wird es ganz gleich sein, ob der eine dieses oder der andere jenes sagt; ihm wird es scheinen, als ob nur immer dasselbe geschildert wird. Für ihn wird derjenige, der nur die physische Persönlichkeit schildert, dasselbe sagen wie derjenige, der den Ätherleib schildert; er wird immer glauben, daß er die Wesenheit des Hans Müller schildert.
[ 39 ] Das alles kann Ihnen aber jetzt ein Bild geben von der ganzen Kompliziertheit der Verhältnisse, die uns entgegentreten, wenn wir vom Gesichtspunkte der hellseherischen, der Eingeweihten-Forschung das Wesen irgendeiner Erscheinung der Welt — sei es des Menschen oder irgendeiner anderen Wesenheit - schildern wollen. Was ich jetzt gesagt habe, mußte ich sagen; denn Sie sehen daraus, daß dann nur die umfänglichste, nach allen Seiten sich ausbreitende Forschung in der Akasha-Chronik irgendeine Wesenheit uns klar vor das geistige Auge führen kann.
[ 40 ] Diejenige Wesenheit, die da vor uns steht, auch in dem Sinne, wie das Johannes-Evangelium sie uns schildert, die da vor uns steht mit dem Ich - gleichgültig ob vor oder nach der Johannes-Taufe, ob wir sie ansprechen als Jesus von Nazareth vor der Taufe oder als den Christus nach der Johannes-Taufe -, sie steht vor uns mit einem Ich, mit einem astralischen Leib, mit einem Atherleib und mit einem physischen Leib. Wir können sie nur vollständig schildern vom Standpunkte der AkashaChronik, wenn wir die Wege verfolgen, welche diese vier Glieder der damaligen Christus Jesus-Wesenheit in der Menschheitsentwickelung durchgemacht haben. Nur dann können wir sie richtig verstehen. Hier handelt es sich um das vollständige Verstehen der Mitteilungen über das Christus-Ereignis vom Standpunkte der heutigen Geistesforschung, wo Licht verbreitet werden muß über das, was sich scheinbar widerspricht in den vier Evangelien.
[ 41 ] Ich habe schon öfters darauf hingewiesen, warum die heutige, rein materialistische Forschung den hohen Wert, den Wahrheitswert des Johannes-Evangeliums nicht einsehen kann: Weil sie nicht verstehen kann, daß ein höherer Eingeweihter anders, tiefer sieht als die anderen. Zwischen den anderen drei Evangelien, den synoptischen, versuchen diejenigen, denen das Johannes-Evangelium nicht recht ist, eine Art von Einklang zu bilden. Einen Einklang zu bilden wird aber, wenn man nur die äußeren materiellen Geschehnisse zugrunde legt, schwer halten. Denn das, was für uns in dem morgigen Vortrage von besonderer Wichtigkeit sein wird, zu betrachten das Leben des Jesus von Nazareth vor der Johannes-Taufe, das wird uns geschildert von zwei Evangelisten, von dem Schreiber des Matthäus-Evangeliums und von dem Lukas-Evangelium-Schreiber; und für eine äußere materialistische Betrachtungsweise gibt es hier Verschiedenheiten, die in nichts nachgeben dem, was zwischen den drei anderen Evangelien und dem Johannes-Evangelium als Verschiedenheit angenommen werden muß. Nehmen wir einmal die Tatsachen. Der Schreiber des MatthäusEvangeliums schildert, daß vorherverkündet wird die Geburt des Schöpfers des Christentums, daß diese Geburt erfolgt, daß Magier kommen aus dem Morgenlande, die den Stern wahrgenommen haben, daß der Stern sie geführt hat an die Stätte, wo der Erlöser geboren wird. Er schildert ferner, daß Herodes dadurch aufmerksam gemacht wird und daß, um zu entgehen der Maßnahme des Herodes, die in dem bethlehemitischen Kindermord besteht, das Elternpaar des Erlösers mit dem Kinde nach Ägypten flieht. Als Herodes tot ist, wird Joseph, dem Vater des Jesus, angezeigt, daß er wieder zurückkehren kann, und er kehrt nun aus Furcht vor dem Nachfolger des Herodes nicht zurück nach Bethlehem, sondern er geht nach Nazareth. — Ich will heute noch absehen von der Ankündigung des Täufers. Ich will aber schon darauf aufmerksam machen, daß, wenn wir das Lukas-Evangelium und das Matthäus-Evangelium miteinander vergleichen, in den beiden Evangelien die Vorverkündigung des Jesus von Nazareth ganz verschieden erfolgt: das eine Mal erfolgt sie dem Joseph, das andere Mal der Maria. Wir sehen dann aus dem Lukas-Evangelium, wie die Eltern des Jesus von Nazareth ursprünglich in Nazareth wohnen und dann bei einer Gelegenheit nach Bethlehem gehen, nämlich zur Zählung. Während sie dort sind, wird der Jesus geboren. Dann erfolgt nach acht Tagen die Beschneidung — nichts von einer Flucht nach Ägypten -; und nach einiger Zeit, die nicht weit danach liegt, wird das Kind dargestellt im Tempel. Wir sehen, daß das Opfer dargebracht wird, das üblich ist, und daß danach die Eltern mit dem Kinde nach Nazareth zurückziehen und dort leben. Und dann wird uns ein merkwürdiger Zug erzählt, der Zug, wie der zwölfjährige Jesus bei einem Besuch, den seine Eltern in Jerusalem gemacht haben, im Tempel zurückbleibt, wie sie ihn suchen, wie sie ihn dann wiederfinden im Tempel zwischen denen, welche die Schrift auslegen, wie er ihnen da entgegentritt als ein Kundiger in der Schriftauslegung, wie er sich verständig und weise im Kreise der Schriftgelehrten ausnimmt. Dann wird erzählt, wie sie das Kind wiederum mit nach Hause nehmen, wie es heranwächst; und wir hören nichts Besonderes mehr von ihm bis zur Johannes-Taufe.
[ 42 ] Da haben wir zwei Geschichten des Jesus von Nazareth vor der Aufnahme des Christus. Wer sie vereinigen will, der muß sich vor allen Dingen fragen, wie er die Erzählung, daß unmittelbar nach der Geburt des Jesus die Eltern, Joseph und Maria, veranlaßt werden, mit dem Kinde nach Ägypten zu fliehen, und dann wieder zurückkehren, wie er das vereinigen kann nach der gewöhnlichen materialistischen Anschauung mit der Darstellung im Tempel nach Lukas.
[ 43 ] Da werden wir sehen, daß das, was uns für die physische Auffassung scheinbar als ein vollständiger Widerspruch erscheint, im Lichte der Geistesforschung uns als Wahrheit entgegentreten wird. Beides ist wahr, trotzdem es als scheinbarer Widerspruch in der physischen Welt dargestellt wird. Gerade die drei synoptischen Evangelien, das Matthäus-, das Markus- und das Lukas-Evangelium, sollten die Menschen hinzwingen zu einer geistigen Auffassung der Tatsachen der Menschheitsgeschehnisse. Denn die Menschen sollten einsehen, daß man nichts damit erreicht, wenn man solchen Urkunden gegenüber nicht über scheinbare Widersprüche nachdenkt oder wenn man von «Dichtungen» spricht, wo man durch Realitäten nicht durchkommt.
[ 44 ] So wird sich uns gerade diesmal Gelegenheit bieten, darüber zu sprechen, worüber eingehend zu sprechen das Johannes-Evangelium keinen Anlaß gegeben hat, nämlich über die Ereignisse, die sich zugetragen haben vor der Johannes-Taufe, vor dem Eindringen der Christus-Wesenheit in die drei Leiber des Jesus von Nazareth. Und manches wichtige Rätsel von dem Wesen des Christentums wird sich uns gerade dadurch lösen, daß wir — aus der Akasha-Chronik erforscht - hören werden, wie das Wesen des Jesus von Nazareth war, bevor der Christus seine drei Leiber eingenommen hat.
[ 45 ] Wir werden morgen damit beginnen, das Wesen und das Leben des Jesus von Nazareth aus der Akasha-Chronik heraus zu prüfen, um uns dann zu fragen: Wie stellt sich das, was wir aus dieser Quelle heraus wissen können über die wahre Wesenheit des Jesus von Nazareth, zu dem, was uns geschildert wird im Lukas-Evangelium als herrührend von denen, die damals «Selbstseher» waren oder «Diener des Wortes», des Logos?
First Lecture
[ 1 ] When we met here some time ago, we were able to discuss the deeper currents of Christianity from the point of view of the Gospel of John. And at that time, those powerful images and ideas that a person can gain by delving into this unique document of humanity, namely the Gospel of John, came to our spiritual mind's eye. On various occasions, we had to emphasize how the deepest depths of Christianity come to light when one reflects on the basis of this document. And today, some of the listeners from that time or from another cycle on the Gospel of John might well wonder: Is it possible to somehow expand or deepen the points of view, which in some respects really must be described as the deepest, and which can be gained from the perspective of the Gospel of John can gain from it, is it possible to somehow expand or deepen these perspectives by considering the other Christian documents, for example the three other Gospels, by considering the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of Mark? And those who, one might say, love theoretical comfort will ask themselves: Is it necessary at all, now that we have become aware of how the deepest depths of Christian truths confront us from the Gospel of John , is it at all necessary to discuss the essence of Christianity on the basis of the other Gospels, especially from the point of view of the – as one could easily believe – less profound Gospel of Luke?
[ 2 ] Anyone who would ask such a question and believe that they have said anything essential from such a point of view would be succumbing to a very significant misunderstanding. Not only is Christianity as such immeasurable in its essence and can be illuminated from the most diverse points of view, but the other is also true – and this series of lectures in particular is intended to prove this: although the Gospel of John is such an infinitely profound document, one can still learn things from the study of the Gospel of Luke, for example, that cannot be learned from the Gospel of John. What we became accustomed to in the Gospel of John cycle of lectures, namely to name the deep ideas of Christianity, is by no means Christianity in its full depth; rather, there is a way to penetrate the depths of Christianity from a different starting point. And this other starting point is to be gained by placing the Gospel of Luke at the center of our considerations from an anthroposophical, spiritual-scientific point of view.
[ 3 ] Let us imagine that there is something to be gained from the Gospel of Luke, even after we have exhausted the depths of the Gospel of John. We must start from what we encounter when we look at every line of the Gospel of John: that documents such as the Gospels present themselves, especially to the anthroposophical observer, as documents documents written by people who have looked more deeply into the essence of life and the essence of existence, who, as initiates and clairvoyants, have looked into the depths of the world. When we speak in general terms, we can use the terms “initiate” and “clairvoyant” as synonyms. But if we now want to penetrate to deeper layers of spiritual life in the course of our anthroposophical observations, then we must distinguish between the clairvoyant and the initiate, which we initially rightly did not. We must distinguish them as two categories of people who have found their way into the supersensible realms of existence. In a certain respect there is a difference between an initiate and a clairvoyant, although there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to prevent the initiate from being at the same time a clairvoyant and the clairvoyant from being to some extent an initiate. If you want to distinguish precisely between these two categories of people, the initiate and the clairvoyant, then you must remember the descriptions given in my discussion of “How to Know Higher Worlds”. You must remember that there are essentially three stages leading beyond the ordinary observation of the world.
[ 4 ] The knowledge that is initially accessible to man can be characterized in such a way that man looks at the world through the senses and through the mind and the other soul powers, makes what he has seen his own. Beyond that, there are three other levels of knowing the world. The first is the so-called imaginative knowledge, the second stage is the inspired knowledge, and the third stage is the intuitive knowledge, if we understand the word intuitive in its true, spiritual-scientific sense.
[ 5 ] Who then possesses imaginative knowledge? He, before whose spiritual eye what lies behind the world of sense unfolds in pictures, in a mighty tableau of pictures, which are, however, not at all similar to what are called pictures in ordinary life. Apart from the difference that there is no such thing as what we call the laws of three-dimensional space for these images of imaginative knowledge, there are also other peculiarities of these imaginative images that cannot easily be compared with anything in the ordinary sense world.
[ 6 ] We can arrive at an idea of the imaginative world if we imagine a plant standing before us, and we would be able to extract everything that the sense of sight perceives as color from the plant, so that it floats freely in the air. If we were to do nothing but extract the color from the plant and let it float freely in front of us, we would have a dead color form before us. But for the clairvoyant person, this color form is by no means a dead color image. Rather, when he draws out what is in things, color, from the things, then, through his preparations and exercises, this color image begins to be enlivened by the spiritual, just as as it was animated in the sensual world by the material of the plants; and then the person does not have a dead color shape in front of him, but rather, freely floating, colored light, shimmering and sparkling in the most diverse ways, but inwardly animated. So that each color is the expression of the peculiarity of a spiritual-soul entity that is not perceptible in the sensory world; that is, the color in the sensory plant begins to express itself to the clairvoyant as a soul-spiritual entity.
[ 7 ] Now imagine a world filled with such multifariously reflecting color forms, endlessly changing and transforming, but not limited to the colorful, as in a painting of shimmering color reflections. Rather, imagine imagine all this as an expression of spiritual and soul-like entities, so that you say to yourself: when a green color image flashes here, it is an expression for me of an understanding being behind it; or when a light reddish color image flashes, it is an expression for me of something that is a passionate being. Now imagine this whole sea of interplaying colors – I could just as easily take another example and say: a sea of interplaying sound sensations or smell or taste, for these are all expressions of underlying spiritual and soul entities – then you have what is called the imaginative world. It is not something for which the word imagination is used in ordinary language, but it is a real world. It is a different kind of perception from the sensory one.
[ 8 ] Within this imaginative world, people encounter everything that lies behind the sensory world and that they do not perceive with their “sensual senses”, if we want to use the expression, for example, the human etheric body, the human astral body. So when a clairvoyant person gets to know the world through this imaginative knowledge, they get to know higher beings from their outside, so to speak, just as you get to know them from their sensual outside when you walk on the street and people walk past you. You get to know them better when you have the opportunity to talk to them. Then, through their words, they express something else to you than what you see when you just meet them on the street and look at them. With some people, when you pass by, to say the least, you cannot see whether there is inner pain or joy in their soul, whether sorrow or delight glows in their soul. But you can learn all this when you talk to a person. One time he announces himself to you through what you can see without his intervention, his exterior, the other time he speaks to you himself. So it is also with the beings of the supersensible world.
[ 9 ] A clairvoyant who gets to know the beings of the supersensible world through imaginative knowledge only gets to know the spiritual-soul exterior, as it were. But he hears them express themselves when he rises from imaginative knowledge to knowledge through inspiration. Then there is really a real communication with these entities. From their own being they tell him what they are and who they are. Therefore inspiration is a higher level of knowledge than mere imagination, and one experiences more about the beings of the spiritual-soul world when one ascends to inspiration than one can gain through imaginative knowledge.
[ 10 ] A still higher level of knowledge is then intuition, provided that one does not use the word intuition as in common parlance, where everything unclear that comes to mind is called intuition, but if one takes the term intuition in the truly spiritual sense. In this case, intuition is a form of realization in which one can not only listen spiritually to what the entities communicate out of themselves, but where one becomes one with these entities, where one immerses oneself in one's own entity. This is a high level of spiritual knowledge. For it requires that the person first carries out that development of love for all entities within himself, where he no longer makes any distinction between himself and the other entities in the spiritual environment, where he has, so to speak, poured out his being into the whole spiritual environment, where he is therefore really no longer outside the entities that communicate with him spiritually, but where he is within these entities, standing in them. And because this can only be in relation to a spiritual-divine world, the expression intuition, which means 'to stand in God', is fully justified. — So these three stages of knowledge of the supersensible world appear to us: imagination, inspiration and intuition.
[ 11 ] Now, of course, there is the possibility of acquiring these three stages of supersensible knowledge. But it is also possible, for example, to advance only as far as the stage of imagination in any incarnation; then the clairvoyant in question is deprived of those regions of the spiritual world that can only be reached through inspiration and intuition. Then the person is a “clairvoyant” person. — In our time it is not usual to lead people to the higher levels of supersensible knowledge without first letting them pass through the level of imagination, so that for our present circumstances it can hardly be the case that someone, so to speak, leaves out the level of imagination and is immediately led to the level of inspiration or intuition. What would be by no means the right thing to do today could nevertheless occur, and has occurred, in certain other periods of human development.
[ 12 ] There were times in human development when the stages of supersensible knowledge were, so to speak, distributed among different individuals: imagination on the one hand, and inspiration and intuition on the other. So that there were, for example, mystery centers where people had such an open spiritual eye that they were clairvoyant in the realm of imagination, that the symbolic world of images was accessible to them. The fact that these people, who were so clairvoyant, said to themselves: “For this incarnation I will refrain from reaching the higher levels, inspiration and intuition,” made them able to see clearly and distinctly within the world of the imaginative. They trained themselves, so to speak, to a very high degree to see in this world of the imaginative.
[ 13 ] Now, however, one thing was necessary for them. Those who only want to see in the world of the imaginative and refrain from penetrating into the world of inspiration and intuition live in a certain sense in a world of insecurity. This world of the flooding 'imaginative' is, so to speak, boundless, and if you are left to your own devices, you swim back and forth with your soul in it without really knowing exactly where you are going. Therefore, in those times and among those peoples in whom certain people renounced the higher levels of knowledge, it was necessary for the clairvoyant, imaginative people to devote themselves entirely to their leaders, to those who had an open mind for inspiration and for intuition. For only inspiration and intuition give certainty for the spiritual world, so that one knows exactly: this is the way, that is the goal. On the other hand, if one lacks inspired knowledge, one cannot say to oneself: this is the way, this is where I must go to reach a goal. So if one cannot say this to oneself, then one must entrust oneself to the knowledgeable guidance of a person who can say it. That is why it is always emphasized in so many places, and rightly so, that the one who first ascends to imaginative knowledge must closely join the guru, the guide who gives him direction and goal in relation to what he cannot give himself.
[ 14 ] On the other hand, however, it was also useful at certain times – today this is no longer done – to let other people leapfrog imaginative knowledge in a way and lead them straight up to inspired knowledge or, if possible, to intuitive knowledge. Such people refrained from seeing the imaginative images of the spiritual world around them; they only surrendered to those impressions from the spiritual world that are outpourings from the inner being of the spiritual entities. They listened with spiritual ears to what the beings of the spiritual world were saying. It is as if you had a wall between you and another person and did not see that person yourself; but you heard him speaking behind the wall. It is quite possible that people renounce looking in the spiritual world, so to speak, in order to be led more quickly to the spiritual listening to the statements of spiritual beings. It does not matter whether someone sees the images of the imaginative world or not, if he is able to hear with spiritual ears what the beings in the supersensible world have to say about themselves, then we say of such a person: he is gifted with the “inner word” —, in contrast to the outer word that we have in the physical world from person to person. Thus we can form the idea that there are also people who, without seeing the imaginative world, have the inner word and can hear the sayings of spiritual beings and communicate them.
[ 15 ] There was a time in the evolution of mankind when these two types of supersensible experience interacted in the adepts in the mysteries. And because each of them refrained from the contemplation of the other, they were able to develop more precisely and clearly what they were capable of, and because that was the case, there was a beautiful, wonderful interaction within the mysteries at certain times. Some were, so to speak, imaginative clairvoyants; they had trained themselves particularly to see the world of images. And some had skipped the world of the imaginative; they had trained themselves particularly to take up the inner word, what is experienced through inspiration, into their soul. And so one could communicate to the other what he had experienced through his particular 'training'. This was possible in times when there was a degree of trust from person to person that is impossible today, simply due to the way the world has developed. Today, no one believes the other person so strongly that they would only listen to what the other person describes as images from the imaginative world and then add what they themselves know from inspiration, faithfully believing that the other person's descriptions are correct. Today, everyone wants to see for themselves. This is the legitimate way of our time. Very few people today would be satisfied with a one-sided training of the imagination, as was common in certain periods. Therefore, it is also necessary for the present time that man be led step by step through the three stages of higher knowledge, without omitting one or the other.
[ 16 ] At all levels of supersensible knowledge we encounter the great mysteries that are connected with that event which we call the Christ-event, so that imaginative knowledge, inspired knowledge and intuitive knowledge have much, infinitely much to say about this Christ-event.
[ 17 ] If we now turn our gaze back to the four gospels from this point of view, we may say that the Gospel of John is written from the standpoint of one who was initiated, who stood within the secrets of the world, and who had attained intuition. He describes the Christ event for the beholding of the supersensible world, and for the attainment of intuition. But anyone who takes a close look at the peculiarities of the Gospel of John will have to admit, as we shall see in this lecture cycle, that everything that comes to us particularly clearly in the Gospel of John is said from the standpoint of inspiration and intuition, and that everything that arises from images of the imagination, on the other hand, pales and is unclear. Thus we may call the author of the Gospel of John – leaving aside what he has nevertheless taken in from the imagination – we may call him the messenger of everything concerning the Christ event that arises for the one who has the inner word, all the way up to intuition. That is why the writer of the Gospel of John essentially characterizes the secrets of the Christ-realm as being endowed with the inner word or the Logos. The Gospel of John is based on inspired intuitive knowledge.
[ 18 ] The situation is different with the other three gospels. And none of the other gospel writers has expressed what he actually has to say as clearly as the writer of the Gospel of Luke.
[ 19 ] A short, strange preface precedes the Gospel of Luke, a preface that roughly says that many people before the writer of the Gospel of Luke had already set about collecting and presenting all kinds of stories that were in circulation about the events of Palestine Palestine, and that, in order to do this more accurately and orderly, the writer of the Gospel of Luke now undertakes to present what – and now come the significant words – those who from the beginning – the usual translation is now – were “eyewitnesses and servants of the word” (Luke 1:1-2) know how to communicate. So the author of the Gospel of Luke wants to communicate what those who were eyewitnesses – or, better, “self-seers” – and servants of the word had to say. In the sense of the Gospel of Luke, “self-seers” are those people who have imaginative knowledge, who can penetrate into the world of images and perceive the Christ event there, who are specially trained to see through such imaginations, self-seers who see exactly and clearly – the writer of the Gospel of Luke bases his messages on them – and who were also “servants of the word”. A meaningful word! He does not say “owner” of the word, because that would be people who have full inspired knowledge, but “servants” of the word, that is, servants of those who do not have the imaginations available to them to the same extent as they do through their self-vision, but who have the revelations of the inspired world available to them. They, the servants, are told what the inspired perceives; they can proclaim it because their inspired teachers have told them. They are servants, not owners of the word.
[ 20 ] Thus the Gospel of Luke goes back to the messages of those who are self-seeing, self-experiencing in the imaginative worlds, who have learned to express what they see in the imaginative world by the means that the inspired person has, who have thus made themselves servants of the word.
[ 21 ] Again, we have an example here of how precisely the Gospels are spoken and how we must understand the words exactly literally. Everything is exact and precise in such documents written on the basis of spiritual science, and modern man often has no idea of the exactness with which the words in these documents are chosen.
[ 22 ] But now we must remind you – as we always do when we are considering these matters from an anthroposophical point of view – that the Gospels are not in the proper sense the sources of knowledge for spiritual science. The fact that something is written in the Gospels does not make it a truth for someone who stands strictly on the ground of spiritual science. The spiritual scientist does not draw from written documents, but from what spiritual scientific research itself yields in his time. What the beings of the spiritual world have to say to the initiate and the clairvoyant in our time are the sources for actual spiritual science, for the initiates and for the clairvoyants. And these sources are in some respects the same in our time as they were in the times I have just described to you. Therefore, even today, those who have insight into the imaginative world can be called clairvoyant, and only those who can rise to the level of inspiration and intuition can be called initiates. Thus, in these times, the expression 'clairvoyant' does not need to coincide with that of 'initiate'.
[ 23 ] What we find in the Gospel of John could only be based on the research of the initiate who was able to ascend to inspired and intuitive knowledge. What we encounter in the other gospels could be based on communications from imaginative, clairvoyant people who were not yet able to ascend into the inspired and intuitive world themselves. Thus, if we strictly adhere to the present-day difference, the Gospel of John is based on initiation; the three other Gospels, preferably the Gospel of Luke, even according to the writer himself, on clairvoyance. And because it is based particularly on clairvoyance, because everything that the most trained clairvoyant is able to see is called upon to help, we are offered a precise picture of what can only be presented to us in faded images in the Gospel of John. To emphasize the difference even more precisely, I would like to say the following.
[ 24 ] Assume – although this is hardly the case today – that a person is initiated, so that the world of inspiration and intuition is open to him, but that he is not clairvoyant, that he cannot recognize the imaginative world. Such a man would meet another man who is perhaps not at all initiated, but to whom the imaginative world is open through some circumstances, so that he can see the whole field of imaginations. A man of the latter kind could communicate to the former a great deal that the former does not see, which the former can perhaps only explain out of inspiration, but which he cannot see himself because he lacks clairvoyance. People who are clairvoyant without being initiated are very numerous today; the opposite is hardly the case today. Nevertheless, it could be that some initiated person has the gift of clairvoyance but, for some reason or other, cannot see the imaginations in a particular case. Then a clairvoyant person could tell him much that is still unknown to him.
[ 25 ] It must always be strictly emphasized that anthroposophy or spiritual science is not based on anything other than the sources of the initiates, that neither the Gospel of John nor the other Gospels are sources of their knowledge. What can be investigated today without an historical document is the source for anthroposophical knowledge. But then we approach the documents and compare what spiritual research can find today with the documents. What spiritual research can find today without a document about the Christ event — can find every hour — we find again in the most magnificent way in the Gospel of John. And that is why it is such a valuable writing, because it shows us that at the time it was written, there was someone who wrote as someone today who is initiated into the spiritual world can write. The same voice, so to speak, that can be perceived today comes to us from the depths of the centuries.
[ 26 ] A similar situation applies to the other Gospels and also to the Gospel of Luke. Not the pictures that the writer of the Gospel of Luke describes to us are the sources of knowledge of the higher worlds for us, but the source for us is what the elevation into the supersensible world itself gives us. And when we speak of the Christ event, then for us the source is also that great tableau of images and imaginations that arise for us when we fix our gaze on what stands at the beginning of our era. And what presents itself to us, we compare with the images and imaginations that are described to us in the Gospel of Luke. And this cycle of lectures should show us how the imaginative pictures that today's man gains differ from the descriptions that confront us in the Gospel of Luke.
[ 27 ] It is true that for spiritual research, when it extends to the events of the past, there is only one source. This source does not lie in external documents. Not stones that we dig out of the earth, not documents kept in archives, not what historians have written, whether inspired or not, are the source of spiritual science. What we are able to read in the imperishable chronicle, in the Akasha Chronicle, that is the source for spiritual research. It gives us the opportunity to recognize what has happened without external records.
[ 28 ] Thus, today's man can choose two ways to obtain knowledge from the past. He can take the external documents if he wants to learn about the external events, the historical records, or, if he wants to learn about spiritual conditions, the religious records. Or he can ask: What do those people have to say who have opened that imperishable chronicle for themselves, which we call the Akasha Chronicle, that great tableau in which everything that has ever happened in the development of the world, the earth and mankind is recorded in imperishable writing?
[ 29 ] The human being who rises into the supersensible worlds gradually learns to read this chronicle. This is no ordinary writing. Imagine the course of events as they have unfolded, standing before your spiritual eye. Imagine Emperor Augustus with all his deeds standing before your eyes as if in a fog image. Everything that happened at that time is there in your mind's eye. This is how it appears to the spiritual researcher, and he can experience it anew every hour. He needs no external evidence. He need only fix his gaze on a particular point in world or human history, and the events that have occurred will present themselves to him in a spiritual image. In this way, the spiritual gaze can roam through the times of the past. What it beholds there is recorded as the result of spiritual research.
[ 30 ] What happened in the times at the beginning of our era? What happened there can be seen through the spiritual gaze and compared with what, for example, the Gospel of Luke tells us. Then the spiritual researcher realizes that there were indeed spiritual seers at that time who also saw what was in the past; and we can compare how what they can communicate to us as their present relates to what can be seen by looking back into the Akasha Chronicle of that time.
[ 31 ] We must always bear in mind that we are not drawing from the records, but that we are drawing from spiritual research itself, and that we are seeking out in the records that which is drawn from spiritual research. This gives the documents added value, and we can decide for ourselves on the truth of what is written in them based on our own research. This means that they grow in our estimation as an expression of truth, because we can recognize truth for ourselves. One should not speak of such a thing as it has just been described without also pointing out that reading the Akashic Records is not as easy as observing events in the physical world. I would like to give you a specific example to illustrate where, for example, certain difficulties lie when reading the Akasha Chronicle. I would like to illustrate it to you in the human being himself.
[ 32 ] We know from elementary anthroposophy that the human being consists of the physical body, the etheric body, the astral body and the I. The moment you stop observing the human being only on the physical plane and start ascending into the spiritual world is when the difficulties begin. When you have a person in front of you physically, you have a unity in front of you; you have their physical body, their etheric body, their astral body and their I. If you observe the person during the waking hours, you have all of this in one unity in front of you. The moment you do not observe the human being during the waking hours of the day, but instead you have to ascend into the higher worlds in order to observe him, the moment this ascent becomes a necessity, that is when the difficulties begin. If, for example, we ascend into the world of imagination at night in order to see the astral body – because it is outside the physical body – then we have divided the human being into two separate parts.
[ 33 ] What I am about to describe will rarely occur, because observing the human being is still relatively easy; but it will give you an idea of the difficulties. Imagine someone entering a room where a number of people are sleeping. If he has the ability of clairvoyance, he will see the physical bodies and the etheric bodies lying in the beds. But this world of the astral is a world of continuity. Up there in the astral world, the astral bodies are running through each other. And even if it is not easy for the trained clairvoyant, it could still happen that when he looks at a whole group of people sleeping, he can easily mix up which astral body belongs to a physical body down there. I said it does not easily happen that this occurs because this seeing belongs relatively to the lowest degrees and because the person who comes to it is well prepared as one has to differentiate in such a case. But when one does not observe people in the higher worlds, but other spiritual entities, then the difficulties begin to be quite great. Yes, they are quite great for man when he is not regarded as a present man, but in his whole being, as he passes through the incarnations.
[ 34 ] If you look at a person who is living now and ask yourself: Where was this person's self in the previous incarnation? then you have to go through the devachanic world to his previous incarnation. You have to be able to determine which self always belonged to the previous incarnations of this particular person. To do that, you have to be able to hold together in a complicated way the continuous ego and the various stages here on earth. It is very easy to make a mistake and to commit an error when searching for the whereabouts of an ego in previous bodies. When one ascends into the higher worlds, it is not so easy to hold together everything that belongs to a person, to a personality, with what is recorded in the Akasha Chronicle as his previous incarnations.
[ 35 ] Now suppose someone set themselves the following task. They have a person in front of them, let's say John Doe. They, as a clairvoyant or initiated person, asks: what are the physical ancestors of this John Doe? Let us assume that all physical records have been lost, so one could only rely on the Akashic Records. He would have to find the physical ancestors, and then he would have to determine the father, mother, grandfather and so on from the Akashic Records to see how the physical body has developed in the physical line of descent. But then the question could arise: what were the earlier incarnations of this human being? Here he must take a completely different path to that which he takes to arrive at the physical ancestors of the human being. He will perhaps have to go back many, many times if he wants to arrive at the earlier incarnations of the I. So you have two currents already. The physical body, as it stands before us, is neither a completely new creature, because it descends from the ancestors in the physical line of inheritance, nor is the I a completely new creature, because it connects to the previous incarnations.
[ 36 ] But what applies to the physical body and to the ego also applies to the intermediate links, the etheric body and the astral body. Most of you will know that the etheric body is not a completely new creature either, but that it too may have gone through some kind of path through the most diverse forms. I have told you how the etheric body of Zarathustra reappeared in the etheric body of Moses — it is the same etheric body. If one were now to examine the physical ancestors of Moses, one would get one line. If one were to examine the ancestors of the etheric body of Moses, one would get another line: this would lead to the etheric body of Zarathustra and to other etheric bodies.
[ 37 ] Just as we have to follow completely different currents for the physical body than for the etheric body, so it is also for the astral body. We can come from every link of human nature into the most diverse currents. Thus we can say: the etheric body is the etheric re-embodiment of an etheric body that was in a completely different individuality, and certainly not in the same one in which the I was previously embodied. And we can say the same for the astral body.
[ 38 ] When we ascend into the higher worlds to examine a person for his former members, the individual currents all go in different directions. One leads us in one direction, the other in another, and we encounter very complicated processes in the spiritual world. If someone now wants to understand a person completely from the point of view of spiritual research, he must not merely describe him as a descendant of his ancestors, not merely as deriving his etheric body from this or that being, or his astral body from this or that being, but he must describe completely how all these four members have made their way until they have now united in this entity. This cannot be done all at once. For example, one can follow the path the etheric body has taken and can come to important conclusions. Another person can then follow the path of the astral body. One person may place more emphasis on the etheric body and the other on the astral body and formulate his descriptions accordingly. For the person who does not observe everything that clairvoyant people say about an entity, it will make no difference whether one person says this or the other that; it will seem to him as if only the same thing is being described. To him, the person who describes only the physical personality will say the same as the one who describes the etheric body; he will always believe that he is describing the essence of Hans Müller.
[ 39 ] All this can now give you a picture of the complexity of the circumstances that confront us when we want to describe the nature of any phenomenon in the world – be it a human or any other entity – from the point of view of clairvoyant, initiated research. What I have said now I had to say; for you see from it that only the most extensive research in the Akasha Chronicle, spreading out in all directions, can clearly bring any entity before our spiritual eyes.
[ 40 ] The entity that stands before us, also in the sense in which the Gospel of John describes it to us, that entity that stands before us with the I – regardless of whether before or after John's baptism, whether we address Jesus of Nazareth before baptism or as the Christ after John's baptism – he stands before us with an ego, with an astral body, with an etheric body and with a physical body. We can only describe her fully from the point of view of the Akasha Chronicle if we follow the paths that these four members of the then Christ Jesus being took through the development of humanity. Only then can we understand her correctly. This is about fully understanding the messages about the Christ event from the point of view of today's spiritual research, where light must be shed on what appears to contradict the four Gospels.
[ 41 ] I have often pointed out why today's purely materialistic research cannot see the high value, the truth value of the Gospel of John: Because it cannot understand that a higher initiate sees differently and more deeply than the others. Between the other three gospels, the synoptic ones, those who do not agree with the Gospel of John try to create a kind of harmony. But if you only take the external material events as a basis, it is difficult to create harmony. For what will be of particular importance for us in tomorrow's lecture, the life of Jesus of Nazareth before John the Baptist, is described to us by two evangelists, by the writer of the Gospel of Matthew and by the writer of the Gospel of Luke; and for an external materialistic point of view, there are differences here that are in no way inferior to the differences that have to be accepted between the three other gospels and the gospel of John. Let us take the facts. The author of the Gospel of Matthew describes how the birth of the creator of Christianity is foretold, how this birth takes place, how magi come from the East who have seen the star, and how the star has led them to the place where the Redeemer is born. He further describes how Herod's attention is drawn to this and that, in order to escape Herod's measure, which consists in the Betlehemite infanticide, the parents of the Redeemer flee to Egypt with the child. When Herod is dead, Joseph, the father of Jesus, is informed that he can return, and he does not return to Bethlehem for fear of Herod's successor, but goes to Nazareth. —Today I will refrain from the Baptist's announcement. But I would like to point out that if we compare the Gospel of Luke with the Gospel of Matthew, the preannouncement of Jesus of Nazareth takes place quite differently in the two gospels: one time it happens to Joseph, the other time to Mary. We then see from the Gospel of Luke how the parents of Jesus of Nazareth originally live in Nazareth and then go to Bethlehem on one occasion, namely for the census. While they are there, Jesus is born. Then, after eight days, the circumcision takes place – nothing of a flight to Egypt –; and after some time, which is not long afterwards, the child is presented at the temple. We see that the sacrifice is offered, which is customary, and that after that the parents return to Nazareth with the child and live there. And then we are told a remarkable story, the story of how Jesus, who is twelve years old, stays behind in the temple during a visit by his parents to Jerusalem, how they search for him, how they then find him again in the temple among those who are interpreting the scriptures, how he approaches them as one who is knowledgeable in the interpretation of scriptures, how he appears to be understanding and wise among the scribes. Then it is told how they take the child home again, how he grows up; and we hear nothing more special about him until John the Baptist is baptized.
[ 42 ] Then we have two stories of Jesus of Nazareth before the Christ is taken up. Anyone who wants to combine them must, above all, ask themselves how they can reconcile the story that immediately after Jesus' birth, his parents, Joseph and Mary, are caused to flee with the child to Egypt, and then return, with the story told in Luke of Jesus' presentation at the temple, according to the ordinary materialistic view.
[ 43 ] There we shall see that what appears to us to be a complete contradiction for the physical view will, in the light of spiritual research, present itself to us as truth. Both are true, despite being presented as an apparent contradiction in the physical world. The three synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, should force people to a spiritual understanding of the facts of human events. For people should realize that one achieves nothing if one does not reflect on such documents in the face of apparent contradictions or if one speaks of “poems” where one cannot get through to realities.
[ 44 ] So this time in particular, we will have the opportunity to talk about what the Gospel of John has not given us any reason to talk about in detail, namely the events that took place before John's baptism, before the Christ-being entered the three bodies of Jesus of Nazareth. And many important riddles about the essence of Christianity will be solved for us precisely by hearing – researched from the Akasha Chronicle – what the nature of Jesus of Nazareth was like before the Christ took his three bodies.
[ 45 ] Tomorrow we will begin to examine the nature and life of Jesus of Nazareth from the Akasha Chronicle, and then ask ourselves: How does what we can know from this source about the true essence of Jesus of Nazareth, compared to what is described in the Gospel of Luke as coming from those who at that time were “self-seers” or “servants of the word,” of the Logos?